Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80287/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80287-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONGGUI XIE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TERRY LAI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-mc-80287-SVK 

ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION

FOR ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1782 PERMITTING DISCOVERY 

FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDING

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Before the Court is the ex parte application of Tonggui Xie (“Mr. Xie”), Canphoenix 

Enterprises Ltd. (“Canphoenix”), Inspire Group Trites Project Corporation (“Inspire Group”), and 

Inspire Group Development Corporation (“Inspire Group Development”) (collectively, 

“Applicants”) for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 authorizing service of a subpoena for 

documents on Google LLC (“Google”). Dkt 1. The proposed subpoena seeks all non-content 

email headers, including the “to” and “from” lines and the dates, from the Google email account of 

Terry Lai (“Mr. Lai”). Dkt. 4-1. Applicants allege that Mr. Lai is guilty of breach of contract, 

conspiracy, and misappropriation under Canadian law. Dkt. 1 at 2. Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS the application on the conditions and for the reasons discussed below. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The following section outlines the facts as represented by Applicants. On or about

November 16, 2012, Mr. Xie and Mr. Lai entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (“Agreement”). 

Dkt. 2 (“Xie Decl.”) ¶ 1. Mr. Xie advanced $2,000,000.00 to Mr. Lai, who, pursuant to the 

Agreement, was to invest that money into 0843003 B.C. Ltd. Id. ¶ ¶ 2-4. Mr. Lai failed to comply 

with the terms of the Agreement and instead misappropriated the money that was payable to 

Applicants. Id. ¶ ¶ 8-13. Applicants filed a suit against Mr. Lai in Canada and after Mr. Lai 

failed to comply with the British Columbia Supreme Court’s rules, Applicants sought relief by 

Case 5:19-mc-80287-SVK Document 5 Filed 12/20/19 Page 1 of 8
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

filing a Notice of Application for an order requiring Google to produce documents associated with 

Mr. Lai’s email account in the British Columbia Supreme Court. Dkt. 1 at 3-4; Pun Decl. ¶ 10; 

Dkt. 3-1, Ex. H. Applicants explained in their Notice that they feared Mr. Lai would delete the 

emails associated with his account and, per Google’s support, any emails that had already been 

deleted by Mr. Lai could not be recovered by Google. Dkt. 1 at 4; Pun Decl. ¶ ¶ 9, 11; Dkt. 3-1, 

Ex. H. The order was granted and Google was ordered to produce documents to an Independent 

Reviewing Solicitor. Dkt. 1 at 4; Pun Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. I. As a result, Applicants seek discovery of 

Mr. Lai’s non-content email headers from Google, without prior notice to Mr. Lai. Dkt. 4-1 at 1.

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

A district court may order the production of documents or testimony for use in a foreign 

legal proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, as long as the disclosure would not violate a legal 

privilege. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 249 

(2004). “The order may prescribe the practice and procedure . . . for taking the testimony or 

statement or producing the document or other thing,” and to the extent that the order does not 

prescribe otherwise, the documents must be produced in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist. Prosecutor’s 

Office, Tokyo, Japan, 16 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis added). An applicant may 

invoke § 1782 where: (1) the discovery is sought from a person or entity residing in the district of 

the court to which the application is made; (2) the discovery is for use in a proceeding before a 

foreign tribunal; and (3) the applicant is a foreign or international tribunal or an “interested

person.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). 

A district court is not required to grant an application that meets the statutory criteria, but 

instead retains discretion to determine what discovery, if any, should be permitted. Intel, 542 U.S. 

at 264. Several factors guide the Court’s decision on a Section 1782(a) request: (1) whether “the

person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding;” (2) “the nature 

of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of 

the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance;” (3) 

whether the request “conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or 

Case 5:19-mc-80287-SVK Document 5 Filed 12/20/19 Page 2 of 8
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

other policies of a foreign country or the United States;” and (4) whether the discovery requested 

is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” Id. at 264–65. The party seeking discovery need not 

establish that the information sought would be discoverable under the governing law in the foreign 

proceeding or that United States law would allow discovery in an analogous domestic proceeding. 

Id. at 247, 261-63. 

A district court’s discretion is guided by the twin aims of Section 1782: providing efficient 

assistance to participants in international litigation and encouraging foreign countries, by example,

to provide similar assistance to our courts. Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP, 376 

F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2004). Applications made under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 are typically considered on 

an ex parte basis, since “parties will be given adequate notice of any discovery taken pursuant to 

the request and will then have the opportunity to move to quash the discovery or to participate in 

it.” IPCom GmbH & Co. KG v. Apple, Inc., 61 F. Supp. 3d 919, 922 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting In 

re Republic of Ecuador, No. C-10-80225 MISC CRB (EMC), 2010 WL 3702427, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 15, 2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Consequently, orders granting § 1782 

applications typically only provide that discovery is ‘authorized,’ and thus the opposing party may 

still raise objections and exercise its due process rights by challenging the discovery after it is 

issued via a motion to quash, which mitigates concerns regarding any unfairness of granting the 

application ex parte.” In re Ex Parte Application Varian Med. Sys. Int’l AG, Applicant, No. 16-

mc-80048-MEJ, 2016 WL 1161568, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016). However, “there may be 

circumstances where it is appropriate for a successful § 1782 petitioner to refrain from providing 

notice to potential adverse parties.” In re Rivada Networks, 230 F.Supp.3d 467, 474 (E.D. Va. 

2017). “In those circumstances a court may, as § 1782 permits, state that the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure do not apply.” Id. 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. Statutory Requirements

The application satisfies the statutory requirements of Section 1782(a). First, the subpoena 

seeks discovery from Google, which has its principal place of business in this District. Dkt. 1 at 5. 

Second, Applicants request this discovery for use in a civil action that has already been filed in 

Case 5:19-mc-80287-SVK Document 5 Filed 12/20/19 Page 3 of 8
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Canada. Id. at 5-6. Third, Applicants are the plaintiffs in the Canadian action and are thus 

interested persons within the meaning of the statute. Id. at 7. 

B. Intel Factors

Although the application satisfies the statutory requirements, the Court must also 

determine whether judicial assistance is appropriate by considering the Intel factors.

1. Participation of Target in the Foreign Proceeding 

The first factor considers whether the person from whom discovery is sought is a party to 

the foreign proceeding. Intel, 542 U.S. at 247. However, “the key issue is whether the material is 

obtainable through the foreign proceeding.” In re Varian Med. Sys., 2016 WL 1161568, at *3 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

According to the application, Google will not be a party to the civil action in Canada. Dkt. 

1 at 8. Furthermore, Applicants contend that the documents they seek are located in the United 

States and that such evidence is outside the reach of a Canadian court’s jurisdiction. Id. Under 

these circumstances, the Court finds that there is a need for assistance pursuant to Section 1782, 

making this factor weigh in favor of permitting discovery 

2. Receptivity of Foreign Tribunal to U.S. Judicial Assistance 

This factor requires the Court to consider “the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character 

of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or 

agency abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 264. “This factor 

focuses on whether the foreign tribunal is willing to consider the information sought.” In re 

Varian Med. Sys., 2016 WL 1161568, at *4. “[I]f there is reliable evidence that the foreign 

tribunal would not make any use of the requested material, it may be irresponsible for the district 

court to order discovery, especially where it involves substantial costs to the parties involved.” Id. 

(quoting In re Babcock Borsig AG, 583 F. Supp. 2d 233, 241 (D. Mass. 2008)). Courts have 

denied requests for discovery where the foreign tribunal or government expressly states it does not 

want the assistance of a United States federal court under Section 1782. See, e.g., Schmitz, 376 

F.3d at 84-85 (affirming denial of Section 1782 request where German government expressly 

objected to the information sought due to concerns it would jeopardize an ongoing German 

Case 5:19-mc-80287-SVK Document 5 Filed 12/20/19 Page 4 of 8
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

criminal investigation, as well as German sovereign rights); In re Ex Parte App. Of Qualcomm 

Inc., 162 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1040-41 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (concluding that this Intel factor weighed 

heavily against discovery where Korean Fair Trade Commission filed an amicus brief stating it 

had no need or use for requested discovery).

Here, Applicants represent that the Canadian court has not indicated that it does not want 

or need this Court’s assistance. Dkt. 1 at 8. In the absence of evidence that Canadian courts 

would object to Applicants’ discovery of the information sought in the subpoena or that Canadian

courts object more generally to the judicial assistance of U.S. federal courts, the Court finds that 

this factor weighs in favor of authorizing service of the subpoena.

3. Circumvention of Proof-Gathering Restrictions

This Court must next consider whether Applicants’ request for discovery “conceals an 

attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or 

the United States.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 265. “A perception that an applicant has side-stepped lessthan-favorable discovery rules by resorting immediately to § 1782 can be a factor in a court’s 

analysis.” In re Varian Med. Sys., 2014 WL 1161568, at *5 (citation omitted). Courts have found 

that this factor weighs in favor of discovery where there is “nothing to suggest that [the applicant] 

is attempting to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions.” In re Google, Inc., No. 14-mc80333-DMR, 2014 WL 7146994, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2014); see also In re Eurasian Natural 

Resources Corp. Ltd., No. 18-mc-80041-LB, 2018 WL 1557167, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018).

Applicants supports their application with the declaration of Mr. Sampson Pun, their 

attorney in the Canadian matter. Pun Decl. ¶ 1. Mr. Pun states that Justice Iyer of the British 

Columbia Supreme Court granted an order requiring Google to provide all documents within its 

power or possession associated with the account lai@inspiregroups.com. Id. ¶ 12 (citing Dkt. 3-1, 

Ex. I). Mr. Pun also states that he worked with Google to narrow the categories of documents 

ordered by Justice Iyer to the “to” and “from” lines of Mr. Lai’s emails, as well as the date those 

emails were sent. Pun Decl. ¶ 13; Dkt. 1 at 11. As Applicants’ request does not suggest that they 

are attempting to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions, the Court concludes that this 

factor also weighs in favor of discovery.

////

Case 5:19-mc-80287-SVK Document 5 Filed 12/20/19 Page 5 of 8
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

4. Unduly Burdensome or Intrusive Discovery

Under the final factor, the Court considers whether the discovery sought is “unduly 

intrusive or burdensome.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 265. Applicants’ proposed subpoena seeks “[a]ll 

non-content email headers, including the to and from line and the dates associated with Mr. Terry 

Lai's email account at lai@inspiregroups.com from June 2012 to the present.” Dkt. 4-1 at 1. Mr. 

Pun avers that he has worked closely with Google’s attorneys to narrow the categories sought so 

as to not create an unduly burdensome or oppressive request. Dkt. 1 at 10-11; Pun Decl. ¶ 13. 

Regarding potential confidentiality concerns, Applicants state that they are not seeking 

confidential information, as they seek only the “to” and “from” lines of Mr. Lai’s emails, as well 

as the date those emails were sent. Dkt. 1 at 11. Applicants also aver that the subpoenaed 

documents will be given to an Independent Reviewing Solicitor whose sole responsibility will be

to review the documents for confidential and/or privileged information before the documents are 

given to Applicants. Id. The Court is satisfied that the discovery sought is not unduly 

burdensome. It does, however, address two issues which implicate the intrusiveness of 

Applicants’ request. 

a. Request that Mr. Lai Not Be Given Prior Notice of the 

Subpoena 

Section 1782 provides that an “order may prescribe the practice and procedure” for the 

production of documents and to the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the 

documents must be produced in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1782(a); In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist. Prosecutor’s Office, Tokyo, Japan, 16 F.3d 

1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 1994); In re Rivada Networks, 230 F.Supp.3d 467, 473 (E.D. Va. 2017). 

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the subpoena commands the 

production of documents, electronically stored information . . . then before it is served on the 

person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). As noted above, in Rivada Networks, the court recognized that “there 

may be circumstances where it is appropriate for a successful § 1782 petitioner to refrain from 

providing notice to potential adverse parties.” In re Rivada Networks, 230 F.Supp.3d at 474. The 

Court finds those circumstances present here. 

As in their Notice to the British Columbia Supreme Court, Applicants contend that 

Case 5:19-mc-80287-SVK Document 5 Filed 12/20/19 Page 6 of 8
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mr. Lai, if given the opportunity, would delete all of the emails associated with his account. Dkt. 

1 at 4; Dkt. 3-1, Ex. I. Applicants contend that their fear of losing this evidence was confirmed by 

Google’s G Suite Support who confirmed that Google cannot recover emails that have been 

deleted by Mr. Lai. Dkt. 1 at 4; Pun Decl. ¶ ¶ 10, 12; Dkt. 1-3, Ex. I. In her order granting 

Applicants’ Notice, Justice Iyer stated that Applicants are to provide Mr. Lai with her order, 

Applicants’ Notice, and other relevant documents after Google delivers the requested documents 

for the Independent Reviewing Solicitor’s review. Dkt. 3-1, Ex. I. This Court is satisfied that 

providing Mr. Lai with notice of Applicants’ subpoena to Google should be done in accordance 

with the practice and procedure prescribed in Justice Iyer’s order rather than those set by the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court concludes that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

do not apply in this case and that Mr. Lai shall be given notice in accordance with Justice Iyer’s 

order. 

b. Stored Communications Act

It is well-established that civil subpoenas, including those issued pursuant to § 1782, are 

subject to the prohibitions of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”). See Optiver Australia 

Pty. Ltd. & Anor. v. Tibra Trading Pty. Ltd. & Ors., No. C 12-80242 EJD PSG, 2013 WL 256771, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2013). The SCA provides in relevant part that “(1) a person or entity 

providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any 

person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service.” 

18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1). “The contents of a . . . communication [are] defined as any information 

concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.” Optiver, 2013 WL 

256771, at *1 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In Optiver, the Court found the 

subject line of an email to be “content” protected by the SCA in part because “revealing the 

subject line would necessarily reveal information about the substance of the communication.” Id. 

at *2. The Optiver Court did allow discovery of “[d]ocuments sufficient to show the recipient(s), 

sender, date sent, date received, date read, and date deleted of emails.” Id. at *3. 

In the Application, Applicants state that they seek all “non-content email headers, 

including the ‘to’ and ‘from’ line, the subject line, and the date associated with Mr. Lai’s email 

account.” Dkt. 1 at 1. Their subpoena, however, indicates that they seek “[a]ll non-content email 

Case 5:19-mc-80287-SVK Document 5 Filed 12/20/19 Page 7 of 8
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

headers, including the to and from line and the dates associated with Mr. Terry Lai's email 

account.” Dkt. 4-1 at 1. To the extent that Applicants seek discovery of the subject lines of Mr. 

Lai’s emails, this Court finds that the subject lines are content protected by the SCA and cannot be 

discovered. See Optiver, 2013 WL 256771, at *2-3. Applicants may, however, seek the to and 

from lines, as well as the dates associated with the emails. 

IV. CONCLUSION

This application meets the statutory criteria for an order authorizing service of the 

proposed subpoena. In addition, the factors that inform the Court’s exercise of its discretion under 

Intel favor authorizing service of the subpoena proposed by Applicants to the extent that it does 

not seek the subject lines of Mr. Lai’s emails and without prior notice to Mr. Lai. Accordingly, 

the Court authorizes service of the proposed subpoena. This order does not foreclose a motion to 

quash or a motion to further modify the subpoena by Google. The Court further orders Applicants 

to comply with the following requirements to ensure all interested persons have an opportunity to 

contest the subpoena in an appropriate forum if they wish:

1. At the time of service of the subpoena, Applicants must also serve a copy of this order 

on Google.

2. The documents sought by Applicants must be produced to the Independent Reviewing 

Solicitor for his review. 

3. Pursuant to Judge Iyer’s order, Applicants must serve a copy of this order on Mr. Lai 

no later than two business days after the Independent Reviewing Solicitor receives the 

documents from Google. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-mc-80287-SVK Document 5 Filed 12/20/19 Page 8 of 8