Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00476/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00476-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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

ACE American Insurance Company,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

UCHINO KEIICMIRO and JANE DOE

KEIICMIRO, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 08-476-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff ACE American Insurance Company’s

(Plaintiff’s) ex parte motion to permit discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference (Dkt.

#7), and Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to effect service of process on Defendant

Uchino Keiicmiro (Dkt. #8).

The instant litigation is a subrogation action for workers’ compensation benefits

paid by Plaintiff, and the underlying claim arises out of an automobile accident that

occurred in Phoenix, Arizona on or around March 13, 2006. (Dkt. #7, p.1; Ex. 1). 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Keiicmiro, a Japanese national and named defendant,

struck the vehicle in which Plaintiff’s insured was a passenger; the accident injured

Plaintiff’s insured, which required that Plaintiff pay workers’ compensation benefits on

behalf of its insured. (Dkt. #7, p.1). At the time of the motor vehicle accident, Defendant

Keiicmiro was driving a car rented from Southern United Rent-A-Car, d/b/a Sakura RentCase 2:08-cv-00476-MHM Document 9 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

A-Car (“Sakura”), and insured by Zurich Insurance (“Zurich”) or its subsidiary, Empire

Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“Empire”). (Id.). 

Plaintiff stated that it served Zurich, Empire, and Sakura with subpoenas duces

tecum, requesting production of records relating to the rental of the vehicle driven by

Defendant Keiicmiro at the time of the accident. (Dkt. #7, p.2). However, counsel for

Zurich, who responded on behalf of Zurich, Empire, and Sakura, stated that her clients

would not provide the requested documents until after the Rule 26(f) conference took

place and discovery was initiated in this litigation. (Dkt. #7; Ex. 2). As such, Plaintiff

filed the instant action requesting that the Court issue an ex parte order authorizing

Plaintiff to undertake prelitigation discovery pursuant to Rule 26(d).

However, Rule 26(d) only provides that parties may conduct discovery prior to

their Rule 26(f) conference if “the court upon motion, for the convenience of parties and

witnesses and in the interests of justice, orders otherwise . . . .” Although Rule 26(d) may

allow the Court, based on a showing of good cause, to order discovery prior to the parties’

Rule 26(f) conference “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the

interests of justice,” Plaintiff cites the Court to no authority that would permit the Court to

allow the requested discovery prior to the completion of service of process under Rule 4

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court is unaware of any authority that

would permit it to order prelitigation discovery other than in relation to issues of

jurisdiction and venue, including jurisdiction over the person and the legal sufficiency of

service of process. See 23 Am. Jur. 2d Depositions and Discovery § 31 (“A Federal

District Court has the inherent and legitimate authority to issue orders of discovery

directed to nonparty witnesses, as necessary for the court to determine and rule upon its

own jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over the subject matter.”). However, in the instant

action, it appears that Plaintiff’s ex parte motion seeking prelitigation discovery is

directed to the production of certain nonparties’ records related to the rental of the vehicle

driven by Defendant Keiicmiro at the time of the accident. 

Case 2:08-cv-00476-MHM Document 9 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 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

1

Service of process by international mail is not prohibited under Article 10(a) of the

Hague Convention, as long as receiving country does not object and the law of the forum

affirmatively authorizes service by international mail. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d

798, 808-09 (9th Cir. 2004).

- 3 -

Ex parte motions are rarely justified, and to be justified, the evidence must show

that the moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is

heard according to regular noticed motion procedures. Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers

Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613 (D.Ariz. 2001). Plaintiff contends that its ex parte

motion should be granted “[i]n the interests of expeditiously resolving this matter,

minimizing unnecessary litigation expenses, and keeping in mind the interests of judicial

economy,” because otherwise Plaintiff would have to serve Defendant Keiicmiro with

process according to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra

Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters pursuant to Rule 4(f) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. #7, p.2). Although the Court acknowledges that this

litigation may turn on the seemingly simple issues of the applicable insurance policy

limits for the rental car that Defendant Keiicmiro was driving during the accident and the

availability of other insurance, Plaintiff has offered no evidence to indicate that adherence

to the procedures contemplated by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would

somehow prejudice Plaintiff’s case or cause undue expense.1

 As such, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to conduct prelitigation discovery at this time.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Permit Discovery

Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference (Dkt. #7) is DENIED.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:08-cv-00476-MHM Document 9 Filed 05/30/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension to time to

effect service of process on Defendant (Dkt. #8) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is

directed to effect service of process on Defendant(s) pursuant to Rule 4(f) within 120

days of this order.

DATED this 28th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00476-MHM Document 9 Filed 05/30/08 Page 4 of 4