Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80281/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80281-1/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

RUSSELL KNAGGS,

Petitioner,

v.

YAHOO! INC.,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-mc-80281-MEJ 

ORDER RE: APPLICATION AND 

MOTION PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1782 FOR DISCOVERY FOR 

USE IN A FOREIGN PROCEEDING

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 13

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Petitioner Russell Knaggs‟s (“Petitioner”) Motion under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1782 for an order directing Respondent Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”) to submit to a deposition 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) and to produce documents for use in a 

foreign proceeding. Mot., Dkt. No. 13; see also Initial 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Appl. (“Appl.”), Dkt. No. 

1. Having considered the parties‟ papers, the record in this matter, and the relevant legal authority, 

the Court now issues the following Order.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a British national who is currently serving a 20 year prison sentence in 

England for conspiracy to import drugs into the United Kingdom (“UK”). Appl. at 2-3; Mot. at 4. 

At trial on the conspiracy charge, the Crown (i.e., the Prosecution) presented evidence obtained 

from Yahoo, which is based in Sunnyvale, California. Appl. at 2; Mot. at 4. This evidence 

allegedly showed Petitioner and his alleged co-conspirators communicating about and organizing 

their conspiracy through a single Yahoo email account by viewing and editing drafts of emails in 

the email account (as opposed to sending emails/messages to each other). Id. (both). Petitioner 

also alleges the evidence included emails that had been deleted from the email account. Mot. at 4.

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 15
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

Petitioner is in the process of appealing his criminal conviction, and one of the grounds for 

his appeal is his belief that the Yahoo-based evidence used against him was gathered by Yahoo

through a method that violated or circumvented British law. Id.; Appl. at 1-2, 4, 16. Specifically, 

Petitioner contends the information provided to the Crown by Yahoo may have been the result of 

real-time monitoring and/or bulk data gathering by Yahoo. Mot. at 4. The UK Court has 

approved Petitioner‟s bid to pursue an appeal based on questions regarding the Yahoo-originated 

evidence. Appl. at 1-2; Mot. at 4. Petitioner now argues he needs “limited fact discovery to 

establish or disprove this basis for evidentiary suppression” by gaining information about the 

method Yahoo used to gather data to provide to law enforcement. Mot. at 4-5. 

The evidence Petitioner alleges Yahoo collected unlawfully includes four “snapshots” of 

content from the email account used in the alleged conspiracy and email headers for emails 

“maintained in the account.” Appl. at 2; May 22, 2014 Statement of Michele Lai1(“2014 Lai 

Stmt.”) ¶¶ 4-6, Dkt. No. 1-1 at ECF pgs. 5-8. According to Yahoo, “snapshots” are “file[s] 

created by [Yahoo‟s] proprietary tool used to capture a copy of all the contents of a user‟s Yahoo 

Mail account at a given moment in time.” Opp‟n at 3 (quotation omitted). Yahoo explains that 

when one of its email users composes an email, a draft is “autosaved” (automatically saved by the 

email system without the user actively saving a copy of the email) on the Yahoo email server, 

under an email “Folder” titled “drafts.” Id. As the user updates or changes the draft email, the 

new version of the draft email is auto-saved on the email server at “periodic intervals.” Id. 

However, previous versions of the draft, while no longer appearing in the “drafts” folder, still 

remain on the email server (though invisible to the user) for an unknown period of time. Id. This 

happens because there is a multistep process that must be completed before the previous drafts are 

permanently deleted from the email server system—and the user updating, changing, or even 

deleting the draft is only the first step in the deletion process. Id. at 3-4. Even if the user deletes 

his or her draft email, the previous versions of the draft are not automatically removed from the 

email system; the user cannot see previous versions of the draft in their email account, but the 

 

1 Michele Lai, now Michele Chan, is the Custodian of Records and the Operations Manager of the 

U.S. Law Enforcement Response Team for Yahoo. Lai Stmt. ¶ 1.

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 15
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

previous versions remain in the email system and on Yahoo‟s servers until the entire removal 

process is complete. Id. And until the entire removal process is complete, the draft can still be 

captured in the account snapshots created by Yahoo. Id. at 4. A majority of the messages 

included in the snapshots provided by Yahoo, and used by the Prosecution at Petitioner‟s trial, 

included messages that had, at some point, been in the draft folder of the account used by 

Petitioner and his alleged co-conspirators. Id.

After informal attempts to gather information about the data-gathering process from 

Yahoo, on November 16, 2015, Petitioner filed his Application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 

asking this Court compel discovery from Yahoo. Appl. at 1-4. Yahoo had earlier provided 

Petitioner with a “custodian of records declaration,” which Petitioner contends “did not respond to 

or address the most critical issues identified in [his] request.” Id. at 3. Before filing his 

Application, Petitioner requested that Yahoo voluntarily agree to depositions, but Yahoo refused, 

offering instead to provide an additional declaration. Id. at 4. Petitioner originally sought to 

depose three knowledgeable individuals at Yahoo: Yahoo‟s Global Compliance Director, its 

Direct of Engineering, and its Back-End Mail Principal Engineer. Id. at 13; Mot. at 6. However, 

after filing his Application, Petitioner and Yahoo met and conferred, and Yahoo proposed 

providing the information sought via written interrogatories. Mot. at 6. Through a series of 

stipulations, the parties agreed to conduct discovery through interrogatories as well as various 

timing extensions. See Dkt. Nos. 5, 7, 9, 11. 

On May 25, 2016, Petitioner filed his Motion to Compel, asking the Court to order Yahoo 

to produce one employee of the company‟s choosing (also labeled Yahoo‟s “person most 

qualified”) for a half-day deposition focused on the subjects of the previous interrogatories, i.e. 

Yahoo data-gathering methods that are relevant to Petitioner‟s case. Mot. at 1. Petitioner also 

requests an Order requiring Yahoo to produce documents responsive to Interrogatory Request No. 

14 and information listed in Petitioner‟s “expert „Wish List‟” concerning Yahoo‟s data-gathering 

methods. Appl. at 5; Mot. at 1. He contends that a deposition is now “called for” because (1) 

Yahoo has offered “evolving explanations” over time about how it retains deleted information in 

user email accounts; (2) “in its recent written responses, Yahoo has insulated the sources of its 

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 15
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

information from scrutiny by the way it has fashioned its responses; and (3) Yahoo‟s explanations 

are not clear and need to be clarified.” Mot. at 3.

Although Petitioner did not provide the Court with all the declarations, statements, and 

interrogatories obtained from Yahoo, he did include the May 22, 2014 and July 1, 2015 written 

statements of Michele Chan (formerly Lai), and the October 27, 2011 statement of Deputy 

Compliance Manager Emily Nick (Nick Stmt., Dkt. No. 1-1 at ECF pgs. 15-17). Petitioner 

contends these statements provide different and conflicting descriptions of the email deletion and 

removal process and the preservation and data-gathering process used to make the snapshots. 

Mot. at 5. Chan, for example, in her July 1, 2015 Statement, changed her explanation of how the 

data-collection works after having reviewed “company documentation” about the Yahoo email 

deletion process and the proprietary tools that assist in preservation and data-gathering for 

snapshots. Specifically, according to her May 22, 2014 statement:

[Y]ahoo only has access to those communications retained by the 

subscriber, including those communications that are present in a 

subscriber‟s email „draft‟ and‟ trash‟ folders. If a user deletes a 

communication from his or her account, the communication 

becomes inaccessible to the proprietary tools Yahoo uses to gather 

communications data in response to preservation requests and search 

warrants. . . . [C]ommunications that a user has not retained in his or 

her Mail account are not accessible to the proprietary tool that 

Yahoo Custodians of Record use to gather communications data in 

response to preservation requests and search warrants. Accordingly, 

a snapshot will never contain a communication that was not present 

in a user‟s account at the time the snapshot was taken. . . . 

[Therefore, Yahoo] could not have and did not produce any 

communications from [Petitioner‟s] account . . . that had been 

completely deleted from the account by the user.

2014 Lai Stmt. ¶¶ 4-5, 9. She also states Yahoo “does backup communications . . . [which] are 

only accessible for the purpose of recovering user account content, at the request of a user, and are 

not accessible to the proprietary tools Yahoo uses to gather communications data in response to 

legal process.” Id. at 6 n.1. However, Chan‟s July 1, 2015 statement explains:

[T]he deletion of an email is a multi-step process, and the removal 

of an email from what is visible to a user (i.e. „the mailbox view‟) is 

a beginning step. Removal of the message from the „mail server‟ 

where the user‟s mailbox data resides requires additional steps. The 

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 4 of 15
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

full details of the deletion process and timelines are beyond my 

knowledge, but the fact that an email can be deleted by a user and 

still remain on the mail server and associated with a user‟s account 

for some period of time resolves the apparent discrepancy in this 

matter. That is, Yahoo‟s proprietary tool was used to retrieve all the 

data for [Petitioner‟s e-mail account] that was present on a mail 

server, even though all of that data was not visible to the user 

because some had previously been deleted.

July 1, 2015 Statement of Michele Lai (“2015 Lai Stmt.”) ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 1-1 at ECF pgs. 9-12. 

Yahoo alleges the differences in Michele Lai‟s statements were the result of her clarifying 

her initial statement in her later statement. Opp‟n at 11-12. Yahoo asserts that, “while accurate as 

a general matter, [Lai‟s 2014 Statement and Nick‟s Statement] did not expressly describe the 

preservation of auto-save drafts of emails that have been deleted from the user‟s mailbox view, but 

still remained on the Yahoo mail servers for a period of time,” as such emails “would be [and 

were] captured in a snapshot.” Yahoo‟s Resps. to Interrogs., Dkt. No. 13-1 at ECF pg. 31. Yahoo 

says its auto-save process is “automatic,” and the email “purging process” “is initiated only when 

it is determined through Yahoo‟s automated proprietary processes that enough activity has 

occurred within the email account to reach the threshold for action.” Id. at ECF pgs. 52-53.

Petitioner‟s computer hardware and software expert, Mark Abramson, who indicates he

has expertise in computer and data forensics, cybercrime analysis, cyber terrorism prevention, and 

Internet intrusion detection, takes issue with Yahoo‟s version of events. May 25, 2016 

Declaration of Mark Abramson (“May 25 Abramson Decl.”), Dkt. No. 13-1 at ECF pgs. 65-67); 

June 30, 2016 Declaration of Mark Abramson (“June 30 Abramson Decl.”), Dkt. No. 24-1 at ECF 

pg. 4; Abramson Expert Report (“Abramson Rpt.”), Dkt. No. 24-1 at ECF pgs. 6-14. Abramson 

notes Yahoo “continuously changes its story” and the information it provides “does not make 

sense” and “is not a technical explanation of the associated events that led up to Yahoo providing 

the information to law enforcement.” Abramson Rpt. at 4. With regard to Yahoo‟s “snapshot”

and its process of “retriev[ing emails] from the servers because their auto-save function 

systematically preserved edits made over time,” Abramson says the descriptions Yahoo gives of 

its auto-save feature are inconsistent, contradictory, and furthermore “do[] not align with 

[Abramson‟s] understanding of such programs.” May 25 Abramson Decl. ¶¶ 4-7. Additionally,

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 5 of 15
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

Abramson contends Yahoo‟s statements “do not in fact agree with common technical principles. 

The timing of e-mail data saved between 2 minutes and several seconds is not consistent.” 

Abramson Rpt. at 8. He asserts that “[a] more plausible explanation for the e-mail information 

provided to law enforcement is that the e-mail account of Mr. Knagg‟s [sic] was under 

surveillance and through the immediate efforts of surveillance, Yahoo was able to capture the email information and provide it to law enforcement.” Id. 

Yahoo, for its part, contends it has “quickly and voluntarily” explained, in its answers to 

the 21 interrogatories propounded by Petitioner, “(1) how it collected the evidence and (2) why the 

draft emails that users had deleted remained on Yahoo‟s servers for some period of time until 

finally purged from the servers, albeit not visible to users in their mailboxes,” and that Petitioner 

only makes his latest Motion because he is “[u]nhappy with the truth—because Yahoo‟s answers 

do not support his argument on appeal[.]” Opp‟n at 1. It further contends “Petitioner‟s proposed 

document requests and deposition are a baseless fishing expedition into aspects of Yahoo‟s email 

system that have nothing to do with the ordinary means by which Yahoo collected Petitioner‟s 

information.” Id. at 2. Among other things, Yahoo reiterates its process of capturing the 

snapshots was not done in real time but rather through auto-save drafts that captured copies of 

messages at various points while the drafts were stored on the Yahoo mail server through its 

proprietary snapshot tool. Id. at 3-4. It also rejects Petitioner‟s argument that it collected this 

information as part of a surveillance program, calling this accusation “baseless.” Id. at 4. 

Finally, Yahoo submits another declaration by Michele Chan filed in support of Yahoo‟s 

Opposition (“Chan Decl.,” Dkt. No. 15-2); the declaration responds to Abramson‟s opinion about 

the irregularities in the frequency of the auto-save feature (id. ¶¶ 2-3). Chan explains that “based 

on communications with others who have reviewed relevant documentation and have personal 

knowledge and expertise[,]” there are “several factors [that] could result in drafts being saved 

more or less frequently.” Id. ¶¶ 1-2. She states “the interval of time between auto-save draft 

messages” can be (1) “a function of the client being used to access a mail account, e.g., web-based 

desktop access or IMAP/POP email client access”; (2) affected “if an account was being accessed 

from more than one client at a time” and “saved more frequently and thus at apparently irregular 

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 6 of 15
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

intervals”; (3) relatedly, “if a user was manually saving drafts, drafts may have been saved more 

frequently and thus at apparently irregular intervals”; and (4) as “auto-save drafts are only saved 

while a message is being composed[,] [i]f a user stopped composing and returned to the draft at a 

later time, the auto-saved drafts of that message would be at least as far apart in time as the break 

in message composition.” Id. ¶ 3. 

Petitioner requests an Order compelling: (1) a half-day 30(b)(6) deposition covering four 

topics and (2) the production of documents responsive to Interrogatory Request No. 142and 

Abramson‟s “wish-list,” including:

 “E-mail system and Retention System documents including design documents, 

command language guides or references, architecture diagrams, user guides, 

administrator guides and system compiler”;

 “A copy of the appropriate e-mail retention version software and software source code”

 “Source code documentation that identifies the software functionality of the e-mail 

system and retention system”;

 “Instruction manuals for the peripheral equipment that was attachable or used to 

retrieve the e-mail data and web log data used in this case”;

 “Instruction manuals for the workstation‟s that were attachable to the e-mail system 

and retention system”; and

 “Documents (whether design or technical in nature) identifying the functions and 

functionality of the e-mail system and retention system; of the „Web Bugs‟ or Web Log 

tracking and storage System, and of the clickstream analytics associated with the 

e-mail data, web analytics and all data sets that are digital and contain e-mail usage 

data.”

May 25 Abramson Decl. ¶ 8; Mot. at 1-2.

Yahoo argues Petitioner‟s requests are cumulative, overbroad, and harassing, as he asks

 

2

Interrogatory No. 14 asks Yahoo to “Please IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS YOU used, 

referred or consulted in preparing the responses to these Interrogatories.” Dkt. No. 13-1 at ECF 

pg. 35.

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 7 of 15
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

Yahoo, a third party—not a defendant—to produce confidential and highly sensitive information, 

including source code and design documents for Yahoo Mail. Opp‟n at 1. It further points out 

that the “four topics” Petitioner seeks a 30(b)(6) deposition for actually purport to cover all 21 

interrogatories previously issued to Yahoo. Jt. Ltr. at 2, Dkt. No. 25. Finally, Yahoo contends “a 

protective order would not be sufficient to guard against disclosure given the extraterritorial nature 

of the underlying proceedings[,]” as “Yahoo would be hamstrung to enforce a protective order 

entered in this Court against Knaggs (who is incarcerated in the U.K.) and his U.K. legal team and 

experts, who lie beyond the reach of this Court‟s jurisdiction.” Opp‟n at 8.

The parties were also ordered to meet and confer and provide a joint statement indicating 

their “compromise positions” as part of the Court‟s ordinary discovery process. Order, Dkt. No. 

23. The parties timely responded. See Jt. Ltr. Petitioner indicates that his proposal at the meet 

and confer was for him to forego a 30(b)(6) deposition and for Yahoo to produce the documents 

identified by Petitioner‟s experts and requested by Petitioner. Id. at 1. Yahoo rejects Petitioner‟s 

proposal, stating it “has made significant concessions in the course of the parties‟ negotiations” 

and counteroffers to answer additional interrogatories, which Petitioner declined. Id. at 1, 3.

PETITIONER’S OBJECTION

Petitioner objects to Michele Chan‟s declaration filed in support of Yahoo‟s Opposition

(Dkt. No. 15-2), arguing “Ms. Chan‟s declaration is not based upon personal knowledge, and does 

not specify the basis for her information and belief. See Local Rule 7-5 („Any statement made 

upon information or belief must specify the basis therefor‟).” Obj. at 3, Dkt. No. 24-2. Petitioner 

contends:

Ms. Chan‟s declaration fails to comply with this fundamental 

requirement [of personal knowledge], as established by its threshold 

admission that it is “based on communications with others who have 

reviewed relevant documentation and have personal knowledge and 

expertise.” [citation omitted] Evidently, Ms. Chan herself does not 

have the requisite personal knowledge. [citation omitted]. Instead, 

she relies on individuals who have “personal knowledge and 

expertise.” [citation omitted] But Ms. Chan does not identify them 

beyond referring to them as “others.” [citation omitted]. Nor does 

she provide sufficient indication of what the basis for the knowledge 

and expertise of the “others” might be. The stated basis is their

review of materials. But Ms. Chan does not identify the materials 

beyond the conclusory statement that they constitute “relevant 

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 8 of 15
9

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

documentation.” [citation omitted].

Id. at 2. Petitioner asserts the Court should only acknowledge Chan‟s declaration “as prime 

evidence of the reason why it should grant Petitioner‟s Motion” or strike the declaration. Id. at 3.

Given the technical information asserted in Chan‟s declaration, the Court agrees Chan does 

not provide enough foundational information that she has the requisite personal knowledge to be 

able to rely on her statements. See Harrington v. Daiso Japan, 2011 WL 2110764, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. May 26, 2011) (sustaining objection to a declaration where the declarant “neither indicates 

that any statement he makes in this declaration is based on his personal knowledge nor offers facts 

by which personal knowledge could be established”). Consequently, the Court sustains 

Petitioner‟s objection and will not rely on Chan‟s Declaration for the matters asserted therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is “to provide federal-court assistance in gathering 

evidence for use in foreign tribunals.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 

247 (2004). Section 1782(a) provides in 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. . . . The order may be made . . . upon the 

application of any interested person and may direct that the 

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

be produced, before a person appointed by the court.

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Consequently, the statute establishes a three-part test when deciding whether 

to grant a § 1782 application: “(1) the discovery sought is from a person residing in the district 

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

tribunal; and (3) the Petitioner is a foreign or international tribunal or an interested person.” In re 

Ex Parte Apple Inc. (In re Ex Apple), 2012 WL 1570043, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2012) (quotation 

omitted). But once it is determined that the three statutory requirements have been met, “a district 

court is free to grant discovery in its discretion” so long as compelling production of the 

information would not violate a legally applicable privilege. Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & 

Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 83-84 (2d Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (“A person 

may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing 

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 9 of 15
10

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

in violation of any legally applicable privilege.”).

However, “[a] district court is not required to grant the application” and “instead retains 

discretion to determine what discovery, if any, should be permitted.” Cryolife, Inc. v. Tenaxis 

Med., Inc., 2009 WL 88348, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009) (citing Intel, 542 U.S. at 264). The 

United States Supreme Court prescribed four factors (known as the “Intel factors”) for district 

courts to consider in exercising their discretion: 

(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 discovery 

request is an “attempt to circumvent proof-gathering restrictions or 

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

whether the discovery is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” 

In re Ex Apple, 2012 WL 1570043, at *1 (quoting Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65). District courts must 

exercise their discretion with the “twin aims” of § 1782 in mind: (1) “providing efficient 

assistance to participants in international litigation” and (2) “encouraging foreign countries by 

example to provide similar assistance to our courts.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 252 (quotation omitted). 

DISCUSSION

There is no dispute that Petitioner successfully meets the statutory requirements of 28 

U.S.C. § 1782‟s three-part test. First, “the discovery sought is from a person residing in the 

district court to which the application is made,” as Petitioner seeks discovery from Yahoo, a U.S. 

company that is principally located in Sunnyvale, California, which is within this Court‟s 

jurisdiction. Second, “the discovery is for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal” as 

Petitioner seeks to use the discovery gained from Yahoo in his appeal of his criminal conviction in 

the UK. Third, Petitioner is an “interested person” because of his involvement in his UK appeal. 

Intel, 542 U.S. at 256 (“No doubt litigants are included among, and may be the most common 

example of, the „interested person[s]‟ who may invoke § 1782”). Consequently, this Court has the 

authority to compel discovery under § 1782.

The issue then is whether the Court should exercise its discretion to permit discovery, and 

if so, to what degree. Of the four Intel factors, the only factor Yahoo relies on to oppose

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 10 of 15
11

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

Petitioner‟s discovery request is the fourth factor, i.e., whether the discovery is “unduly intrusive 

or burdensome.” Opp‟n at 6 (“[A] court may deny overly broad and unduly burdensome 

discovery requests even though the Section 1782 application meets the other statutory 

requirements and discretionary factors.” (citing In re Ex Parte Appl. of Nokia Corp., 2013 WL 

6073457, *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013))). Yahoo argues Petitioner‟s deposition and document 

requests are unduly burdensome and should be denied because: “(1) the proposed document 

requests and 30(b)(6) deposition are unreasonably intrusive and overly broad; (2) the requested 

deposition and document requests are a fishing expedition into Yahoo‟s email system and 

compliance with government surveillance programs; and (3) Petitioner has failed to show that the 

discovery requests are likely to produce relevant, noncumulative information.” Id. at 5-6.

The proper scope of discovery arising out of a § 1782 application is determined by the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In re Letters Rogatory from the Tokyo Dist. Prosecutor’s 

Office, 16 F.3d 1016, 1019-20 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1994) (“In addition to the clear language of the 

statute, the legislative history makes clear that „if the court fails to prescribe the procedure, the 

appropriate provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be followed, irrespective of 

whether the foreign or international proceeding or investigation is of a criminal, civil, 

administrative, or other nature.‟” (citation omitted)); Medeiros v. Int’l Game Tech., 2016 WL 

1611591, at *3 & n.2 (D. Nev. Apr. 22, 2016) (applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to a 

§ 1782 application, and noting “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been applied even 

when the underlying foreign proceeding is criminal in nature.” (collecting cases)); accord Gov’t of 

Ghana v. ProEnergy Servs., LLC, 677 F.3d 340, 343 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that “[t]he manner 

in which discovery proceeds [under a § 1782 Application] will be determined by normal discovery 

rules.” (citing Weber v. Finker, 554 F.3d 1379, 1384 (11th Cir. 2009) and Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH 

v. Biomet, Inc., 633 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir. 2011))). Following the December 1, 2015 

Amendments to the Federal Rules, requests must be “proportional,” “considering the importance 

of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties‟ relative access to 

relevant information, the parties‟ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” 

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 11 of 15
12

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “[U]nduly intrusive or burdensome requests may be rejected or 

trimmed.” Intel, 542 U.S.at 246

The Court agrees with Yahoo that Petitioner‟s requests are somewhat broad; however, the 

Court also agrees that Yahoo‟s seemingly conflicting responses up to this point create a situation 

where Petitioner cannot be certain he understands the process of information gathering he seeks to 

challenge. While Yahoo believes that Petitioner seeks information that is cumulative given its 

interrogatory responses, it would appear that the requested discovery would not necessarily be 

cumulative, but might instead provide clarity to Petitioner regarding Yahoo‟s data-gathering 

methods. Additionally, since the documents Petitioner requests are potentially the same ones that 

helped Chan “clarify” her previous statement and better understand the data-gathering process, it 

would appear that these documents could help Petitioner gain a better understanding of the system 

as well, and could help to prove or disprove one of the grounds of his appeal, as is the purpose of 

his discovery request. The Court also notes that Chan‟s responses up to this point do not provide 

the sort of personal knowledge or foundational information for the Court or Petitioner to be able to 

adequately assess her responses. Consequently, Petitioner‟s request for documents and a 30(b)(6) 

deposition is appropriate rather than ordering further interrogatory responses. See La. Pac. Corp. 

v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 488 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“While [a 

company] might prefer . . . interrogatories than to prepare a witness for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, 

. . . its preference does not provide the court with a basis for giving it the relief it seeks.”). 

That said, Petitioner has not shown how his expert‟s “wish list” of documents are tailored 

to his needs and appear much broader than necessary. Requests are “unduly intrusive and 

burdensome where they are not narrowly tailored, request confidential information[,] and appear 

to be a broad „fishing expedition‟ for irrelevant information.” In re Ex Parte Appl. of Qualcomm 

Inc., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 641700, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016); see In re Appl. of 

Gemeinshcaftspraxis Dr. Med. Schottdorf, 2006 WL 3844464, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006) 

(courts must look at whether the discovery requested is “sufficiently tailored to the litigation 

issues for which production is sought.”). 

The crux of Petitioner‟s § 1782 Application is aimed at obtaining information about how 

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 12 of 15
13

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

Yahoo collected and produced the evidence used at Petitioner‟s criminal trial and whether that 

collection was done through real-time monitoring and/or bulk data gathering. See Appl. at 1-2. 

Petitioner‟s primary problem with Yahoo‟s responses up until now seems to be that “Yahoo!‟s 

explanations how its auto-save feature preserved deleted information in this case are not clear to 

Petitioner‟s experts and need to be further clarified.” Mot. at 11. However, Petitioner‟s request 

for a 30(b)(6) deposition that involves all 21 interrogatory topics (albeit broadly corralled into four 

purported topics by Petitioner) and a document production responsive to Interrogatory No. 14 (i.e., 

“Please IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS YOU used, referred or consulted in preparing the 

responses to these Interrogatories”), is overbroad. While Petitioner argues the documents called 

for in Interrogatory No. 13 are “unquestionably relevant,” Petitioner has not sufficiently 

established why all 21 interrogatory subjects are relevant to his discovery needs. Consequently, 

having reviewed the Petitioner‟s interrogatories, the Court finds the following information is 

presently subject to discovery in this matter:

(1) Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 16, which ask Yahoo to describe in detail all preservation 

snapshots performed or conducted on the Target Email Account;

(2) Interrogatory No. 5, which asks Yahoo to describe in detail how any preservation 

snapshots it performed or conducted on the Target Email Account captured content that 

the account users had previously deleted;

(3) Interrogatory No. 6, which asks Yahoo to describe in detail why the email content from 

the preservation snapshots performed or conducted on the Target Email Account on or 

around May 7, 2010 appears to be made up of over 100 smaller snapshots taken at 

random and irregular intervals during the composition phase of the email text;

(4) Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 19, which ask Yahoo to describe in detail whether the Target 

Email Account was subjected to any form of live/real time or continuous monitoring or 

any bulk data gathering;

(5) Interrogatory No. 17, which asks Yahoo to identify all search warrants, letters of 

request, or court orders Yahoo received from any law enforcement bodies (including 

the United States Department of Justice), prosecuting authorities, and/or courts relating 

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 13 of 15
14

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

to the Target Email Account, other than the preservation request which gave rise to the 

September 30, 2009 snapshot and search warrant from Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) Special Agent Luong, which gave rise to the May 7, 2010 snapshot; and

(6) Interrogatory No. 18, which asks Yahoo to describe in detail why the email content 

from the preservation snapshots performed or conducted on the Target Email Account 

on or around September 30, 2009 and May 7, 2010 did not capture the entirety of the 

words and/or sentences and other parts of the draft emails were caught in the snapshot.

See Dkt. No. 13-1 at ECF pgs. 24-44. Yahoo must designate one or more witnesses to sit for a 

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the foregoing topics. It must also identify and produce any nonprivileged documents Yahoo used or referred to in responding to the interrogatories identified 

above. Yahoo shall comply with the ordinary discovery procedures, including, if necessary: filing 

a privilege log and seeking a protective order for the disclosed data.

Finally, while Yahoo contends “a protective order would not be sufficient to guard against 

disclosure given the extraterritorial nature of the underlying proceedings[,]”this argument is 

insufficient to prevent the disclosure of the discovery sought. Moreover, it is an issue easily 

remedied. In similar circumstances, courts have directed the parties to “jointly seek a protective 

order in” both the United States and the country in which the main suit arose. Siemens AG v. W. 

Digital Corp., 2013 WL 5947973, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013); see also In re Procter & 

Gamble Co., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1117 (E.D. Wis. 2004) (suggesting various ways 

confidentiality could be maintained, such as if the parties agreed not to exchange discovery 

unless/until obtaining a ruling in the foreign court that the information would be kept confidential

and making the contract enforceable in the United States). Accordingly, Yahoo shall assess the 

information to be produced and shall then meet and confer with Petitioner concerning the nature 

and purported confidentiality of those documents. The parties shall then assess in what form and 

with what protections those documents should be produced (e.g., attorney‟s eyes only, etc.). If 

necessary, Yahoo may seek a protective order or related protections from this Court; however, that 

is not an invitation to delay production or the deposition.

//

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 14 of 15
15

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

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner‟s Motion pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1782 for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. 

Consequently the Court ORDERS as follows:

A. By August 31, 2016, Yahoo shall (1) produce a witness to sit for a Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition concerning the interrogatory topics listed above and (2) produce any 

non-privileged documents Yahoo used or referred to in responding to the 

interrogatories topics identified above. 

B. In complying with the foregoing, the parties shall meet and confer to determine in what 

form and with what protections the documents shall be produced.

C. By September 9, 2016, the parties shall file a status report with the Court as to their 

compliance with the foregoing Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-mc-80281-MEJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/16 Page 15 of 15