Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01086/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01086-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

AFL Telecommunications LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SurplusEQ.com Incorporated, Tech Sales 

LLCV, Daniel Parsons, 

Defendants.

No. CV11-01086-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants have filed an application for issuance of a commission for depositions 

in a foreign country under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b)(2), requesting that the 

Court commission the consul or vice consul of the United States Embassy in Tokyo, 

Japan, to take the depositions of three witnesses. Doc. 77. Defendants’ attached 

“Commission to Take Depositions in a Foreign Country” states that it is made “pursuant 

to Article 17 of the United States – Japan Consular Convention.” Doc. 77-2 at 1. It also 

states that the depositions are to commence on or about September 4, 2012 and terminate 

on or about September 6, 2012. Id. at 2. 

 Rule 28(b) provides four ways for a United States court to request depositions in a 

foreign country: “(1) pursuant to a treaty or convention; (2) pursuant to a letter of request; 

(3) on notice before a person authorized to administer oaths in the place where the 

examination is held; and (4) before a person commissioned by the court.” Mujica v. 

Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F.Supp. 2d 1134, 1151 (C.D. Cal. 2005); See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 28(b). 

Case 2:11-cv-01086-DGC Document 96 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 Where the court issues a commission, it must name or designate by title the person 

before whom the deposition will be taken. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(3). Typically, this is a 

consular officer, see William H. Baker, Obtaining Evidence: International Discovery 

Techniques–The Taking of Evidence Abroad for Use in American Courts, 688 PLI/Lit 

173, at *195 (2003), but “[a]ny United States notarizing officer may be . . . designated to 

execute a commission to take depositions,” 22 C.F.R. § 92.55(a). In countries where 

relevant treaties or laws do not permit the notarizing officer to take depositions, those in 

receipt of a commission must return it with explanations and instructions regarding 

alternate methods of securing the depositions. Id. at § 92.55(c). Ordinarily, the 

commission is also accompanied by detailed instructions for its execution. Id. at § 92.53. 

 Defendants have styled their request as one for a commission under 

Rule 28(b)(1)(d), not as one pursuant to “an applicable treaty or convention” under 

Rule 28 (b)(1)(a). They have stated, however, that their request is made “pursuant to 

Article 17 of the United States – Japan Consular Convention.” Doc. 77-2 at 1. In the 

interest of following appropriate procedures and avoiding possible delay, the Court will 

require Defendants to submit a copy of the relevant provisions in the United States – 

Japan Consular Convention. See Federal Rule 28(b)(3) (“When a letter of request or any 

other device is used according to a treaty or convention, it must be captioned in the form 

prescribed by the treaty or convention.”). 

 Defendants’ request also appears insufficiently detailed. Defendants have 

included in their attached commission the relevant dates and times for the depositions and 

have listed the attorneys to be present, but the commission does not state that the consul 

or vice consul is to administer oaths or otherwise refer to his or her duties at the 

deposition under 22 C.F.R. § 92.56. In addition, Defendants have not specified whether 

they will require or retain translators. See, e.g., Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., No. 

96-1474, 1996 WL 243533 (E.D. La. May 9, 1996) (requiring that defendants retain 

necessary interpreters from a list provided by the United States Embassy and 

commissioning the chosen interpreters to serve at deposition.). Nor have Defendants 

Case 2:11-cv-01086-DGC Document 96 Filed 04/26/12 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

stated whether they or the consular officials will retain the stenographer to “cause the 

testimony of said witnesses to be reduced to writing.” Doc. 77-2 at 2. 

 Finally, the application states that the depositions will occur on September 4-6, 

2012, well after the June 15, 2012 close of fact discovery set by this Court (Doc. 95) at 

the parties’ request (Doc. 76). The Court has stated that it will not extend this alreadyextended deadline. Doc. 95, ¶ 10. See Horvath v. Deutsche Luthansa, AG, No. Civ. 

3269(PKC), 2004 WL 241671, *4 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 9, 2004) (noting that Rule 28 does not 

divest the court of its supervisory authority over the discovery process). 

 The Court will deny Defendants’ application without prejudice to their re-filing of 

an application that addresses these issues. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ application for a commission for depositions 

in a foreign country (Doc. 77) is denied without prejudice. 

 Dated this 26th day of April, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01086-DGC Document 96 Filed 04/26/12 Page 3 of 3