Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-mc-80023/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-mc-80023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

IN RE: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 

ASSISTANCE FROM OBOLONSKYI 

DISTRICT COURT IN KYIV, UKRAINE,

Case No. 20-mc-80023-JSC 

ORDER RE: EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL 

ASSISTANCE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

The United States, on behalf of the Obolonskyi District Court in Kyiv, Ukraine (“the 

Ukrainian Court”), has filed an ex parte application to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1782. (Dkt. No. 1.) That statute allows a district court to order a person residing or found within 

its district to produce documents or provide testimony for use in a foreign legal proceeding, unless 

the disclosure would violate a legal privilege. Here, the United States seeks an order appointing

Emmet P. Ong, Assistant United States Attorney, Commissioner for the purposes of obtaining 

information from Cloudflare, Inc., in the form of written statement. Upon consideration of the 

application and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the application.

BACKGROUND

On September 27, 2019, the Ukrainian Court issued a Letter of Request under the Hague 

Evidence Convention seeking evidence for a civil action pending in the Ukraine, Liudmyla 

Petrivna Kozlovska v. Public Organization “Stop Corruption,” Ref. No. 756/14307/18. (Dkt. No. 

3 at 5.1) In that action, the plaintiff contends that the defendant “posted negative false information 

as to the plaintiff that violated her non-proprietary rights to respect honor, dignity, business 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:20-mc-80023-JSC Document 4 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 5
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

reputation” on the website Stopcor.org. (Id. at 9.) The defendant “has filed a defense, where it 

disputes the claim referring to the fact that it has no connection with the article published, as it is 

not the owner (user) of the indicated website www.stopcor.org, it doesn’t have access to the 

servers of this website as well as the defendant is not the author or content editor of posting as to 

the plaintiff.” (Id.) The registrar of the domain name stopcor.org is CloudFlare, Inc. (Id.) The 

Ukrainian Court is thus seeking information from CloudFlare regarding the “surname, name, place 

of registration and residence, telephone, e-mail (as to the individual) or name of the legal entity, 

USREOU code, its location, phone, e-mail (as to the legal entity).” (Id. at 9-10.)

The Ukrainian Court’s request was transmitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil 

Division, Office of Foreign Litigation, Office of International Judicial Assistance in Washington 

D.C. pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial 

Matters. (Dkt. No. 3 at Ex. A.) On January 7, 2020, the request was transmitted to the United 

States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California who thereafter filed the underlying 

action. The United States represents that CloudFlare has advised it that it cannot “voluntarily 

comply” with the request for information. (Dkt. No. 3 at ¶ 5.) It makes no representation 

regarding whether the defendant in the underlying Ukrainian action objects.

LEGAL STANDARD

Section 1782(a) provides, in pertinent part:

The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found 

may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a 

document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or 

international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted 

before formal accusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter 

rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal 

or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that 

the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing 

be produced, before a person appointed by the court.

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). A litigant in a foreign action qualifies as an “interested person” under 

Section 1782. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004). To 

apply for discovery pursuant to Section 1782, a formal proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction need 

not be currently pending, or even imminent. Id. at 258-59. Instead, all that is necessary is that a 

“dispositive ruling” by the foreign adjudicative body is “within reasonable contemplation.” Id. at 

Case 3:20-mc-80023-JSC Document 4 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 5
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

259 (holding that discovery was proper under Section 1782 even though the applicant’s complaint 

was still only in the investigative stage). When it comes to requests directly from foreign courts, 

district courts typically handle Section 1782 discovery requests in the context of an ex parte

application for an order appointing a commissioner to collect the information. See In re Letters 

Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that the 

subpoenaed parties may object and exercise due process rights by bringing motions to quash the 

subpoenas after the court issues a Section 1782 order); see, e.g., In re Request for Int’l Judicial 

Assistance from the Nat’l Ct. Admin. of the Republic of Korea, No. C15-80069 MISC LB, 2015 

WL 1064790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2015) (granting ex parte application for a Section 1782 

order); In re Request for Int’l Judicial Assistance from the 16th Family Ct. of the Supreme Ct. of 

Justice of the Fed. Dist., No. 14-mc-80083-JST, 2014 WL 1202545, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 

2014) (same). 

The court retains wide discretion to grant discovery under Section 1782. See Intel, 542 

U.S. at 260-61. In exercising its discretion, the court considers the following factors: (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 other policies of a foreign country or the United States”; and (4) whether the request 

is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” Id. at 264-65; see also In re Request for Judicial Assistance 

from the Seoul Dist. Crim. Ct., 555 F.2d 720, 723 (9th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted) (noting that 

the only requirements explicit in the statute are that the request be made by a foreign or 

international tribunal, and that the testimony or material requested be for use in a proceeding in 

such a tribunal, but also holding “that the investigation in connection with which the request is 

made must related to a judicial or quasi-judicial controversy”). 

“A district court’s discretion is to be exercised in view of 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.” Nat’l Ct. Admin. of the Republic 

Case 3:20-mc-80023-JSC Document 4 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 5
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

of Korea, 2015 WL 1064790, at *2 (citing Schmitz v. Bernstein Libehard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 

F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2004)). The party seeking discovery need not establish that the information 

sought would be discoverable under the foreign court’s law or that the U.S. would permit the 

discovery in an analogous domestic proceeding. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 247, 261-63.

Unless the district court orders otherwise, the discovery authorized by the court must be 

obtained 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).

DISCUSSION

A. Statutory Authority

The United States’ application satisfies the minimum requirements of Section 1782. First, 

CloudFlare’s offices are location in San Francisco, California which is within the Northern 

District of California. (Dkt. No. 3 at ¶ 6.) Second, the requested discovery is for use in a civil 

action pending in a court in the Ukraine. With respect to the third factor, Section 1782 plainly 

states that discovery orders may issue upon the request of either a foreign tribunal or an interested 

party. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). The United States is making the application on behalf of the 

Ukrainian Court, the foreign tribunal before which the civil action is pending. Lastly, the instant 

ex parte application is an acceptable method of requested discovery under Section 1782. See 

Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d at 1219.

B. Discretion

The Court finds good cause to exercise its discretion to authorize the requested discovery

and appoint Assistant United States Attorney Emmet P. Ong as a Commissioner to obtain this

discovery from CloudFlare. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 260-61. CloudFlare is not a party to the 

Ukrainian action, and therefore discovery regarding its records is unattainable absent Section 

1782(a) aid. With respect to the second discretionary factor and the nature and receptivity of the 

foreign tribunal, the United States represents that the Ukrainian Court has requested assistance in 

obtaining this discovery. There is nothing to suggest that the request here is an “attempt to 

circumvent proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States.” 

Case 3:20-mc-80023-JSC Document 4 Filed 02/05/20 Page 4 of 5
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

Id. at 264-65; see In re Request for Judicial Assistance from the Dist. Court in Svitavy, Czech 

Republic, 748 F. Supp. 2d 522, 527 (E.D. Va. 2010) (“Clearly, the Svitavy Court is receptive to 

the assistance of this Court, considering that the Request for Judicial was initiated by the Svitavy 

Court itself, not by a litigant operating independently.”). Finally, the requested information is not 

unduly burdensome or intrusive. Section 1782 provides that the district court “may direct that the 

testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person 

appointed by the court. By virtue of his appointment, the person appointed has power to 

administer any necessary oath and take the testimony or statement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1728(a). The 

United States seeks a written statement from CloudFlare regarding the owner or user of the 

domain name on behalf of the Ukrainian Court.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS the 1782 application as follows:

1. The Court appoints Assistant United States Attorney Emmet P. Ong as Commissioner 

and authorizes Mr. Ong to issue the subpoena attached to his declaration to CloudFlare. 

2. At the time of service of the subpoena, the United States must also serve a copy of this 

Order on CloudFlare. The return date on the subpoena must be at least 30 days from 

the date of service.

3. Within 7 days of receipt of the subpoena and this Order, CloudFlare shall provide 

copies of the subpoena and this order to domain name owner(s) or users.

4. Within 14 days from the date of receipt of copies of the subpoena and this Order, any 

interested person may file a motion in this Court contesting the subpoena. Should any 

person do so, this action shall automatically be reopened.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:20-mc-80023-JSC Document 4 Filed 02/05/20 Page 5 of 5