Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-mc-80208/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-mc-80208-0/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 EX PARTE APPLICATION OF NC 

DENGEN KAIHATSU KK

Case No. 18-mc-80208-DMR 

ORDER ON AMENDED EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO 

OBTAIN DISCOVERY FOR USE IN 

FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Applicant NC Dengen Kaihatsu KK (“NCD”) filed an ex parte application seeking 

permission to issue subpoenas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery for use in foreign 

proceedings. The court ordered NCD to re-file its application with supporting evidence (Docket 

No. 6), which it timely filed.1 [Docket No. 7 (Am. Appl.).] Having considered the papers and the 

relevant legal authority, the court grants the application in part, and denies it in part.

I. BACKGROUND

NCD filed this application seeking discovery in aid of foreign proceedings regarding a

contractual dispute between NCD and Tohoku Ecopower Station GK (“Tohoku”). NCD is a 

foreign company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. [Docket No. 7-7 (Hiyama Decl., Feb. 5, 2019) ¶ 

3.] Tohoku is a “Special Purpose Company” (“SPC”) created by EverStream Energy Capital 

Management (“EverStream”), an American private equity firm headquartered in San Francisco, 

 

1 Civil Local Rule 7-5 provides that “[f]actual contentions made in support of . . . any motion 

must be supported by an affidavit or declaration and by appropriate references to the record.” Civ. 

L.R. 7-5(a). As stated in the court’s order, the first application was filed without any evidence 

supporting the factual contentions in its application. [See Docket Nos. 1, 6.] While NCD 

submitted supporting declarations with its amended application, it did not include all of the factual 

contentions from its original application in the amended application. As the applications are not 

identical, the court deems the original application withdrawn and relies solely on the factual 

contentions in the amended application that are properly supported with evidence. 

Case 4:18-mc-80208-DMR Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 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

California. Id. at ¶ 4; see also Docket No. 7-4 (Hansen Decl., Feb. 7, 2019) ¶ 2, Ex. 2. NCD is a 

defendant in a lawsuit brought by Tohoku in the Tokyo District Court, in Tokyo, Japan (the 

“Tokyo action”). Hiyama Decl. ¶ 3-4.

NCD and EverStream are parties to a Project Sourcing Agreement, the purpose of which 

was to facilitate the sourcing of solar projects in Japan. Hiyama Decl. ¶ 4. Pursuant to the Project 

Sourcing Agreement, Everstream set up and invested in Tohoku. Id. Tohoku subsequently signed 

a Services Agreement with NCD. Id. In the Tokyo action, Tohoku claims that NCD breached the 

Services Agreement by “misrepresent[ing] certain shareholdings in connection with the Services 

Agreement, and that this misrepresentation led to lost profits.” Id. at ¶ 5. Tohoku further claims

that it rightfully terminated the Services Agreement due to NCD’s breach. Id.

To defend itself in the Tokyo action, NCD asserts that “Tohoku’s termination of the 

Services Agreement had nothing to do with the allegations of misrepresented shareholdings,” but 

was instead “in response to NCD’s refusal to acquiesce to a payment scheme proposed by 

principals of EverStream.” Id. at ¶ 6. NCD filed this application for discovery in order to inquire 

“into Tohoku’s true basis for terminating the Services Agreement.” Am. Appl. 3. NCD seeks 

discovery because it believes that EverStream, a nonparty to the foreign proceeding, possesses or 

controls information relevant to NCD’s defense. Id. NCD’s requests for discovery include a 

subpoena for eight categories of documents that primarily concern the Services Agreement and 

EverStream’s relationship with NCD and other parties, as well as a subpoena to depose

EverStream. Am. Appl. Ex. B, C.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Applicants seek discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which states as follows:

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 . . . 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 . . . . To the extent that the 

order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall 

be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 4:18-mc-80208-DMR Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 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

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). The purpose of section 1782 is “to provide federal-court assistance in the

gathering of evidence for use in a foreign tribunal.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,

542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004); see also Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 84

(2d Cir. 2004) (noting that section 1782 has the “twin aims” of “providing efficient means of

assistance to participants in international litigation in our federal courts and encouraging foreign

countries by example to provide similar means of assistance to our courts” (citation and quotations 

omitted)).

A district court is authorized to grant a section 1782 application where (1) the person from 

whom the discovery is sought resides or is found in the district of the district court to which the 

application is made, (2) the discovery is for use in a proceeding before a “foreign or international 

tribunal,” and (3) the application is made by the foreign or international tribunal or “any interested 

person.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); see also Intel, 542 U.S. at 246-47; In re Republic of Ecuador, No. 

C-10-80255-CRB (EMC), 2010 WL 3702427, *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010).

“However, simply because a court has the authority under § 1782 to grant an application 

does not mean that it is required to do so.” In re Republic of Ecuador, 2010 WL 3702427, at *2 

(citing Intel, 542 U.S. at 264). The Supreme Court has identified several discretionary factors that 

a court should take into consideration in ruling on a Section 1782 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 

other policies of a foreign country or the United States”; and (4) whether the request is “unduly 

intrusive or burdensome.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Authority to Issue Subpoenas

The court has reviewed NCD’s request and determines that the statutory requirements of 

section 1782 are satisfied. First, EverStream’s headquarters are in San Francisco, California, 

which is in this district. Hansen Decl. Ex. 2. Second, the requested discovery is for use in 

Case 4:18-mc-80208-DMR Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 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

proceedings pending in the Tokyo District Court in Japan, a foreign tribunal. 

Finally, NCD qualifies as an “interested person” because there is “[n]o doubt that litigants 

are included among, and may be the most common example of, the ‘interested person[s]’ who may 

invoke § 1782.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 256. NCD is a defendant in the pending action in the Tokyo 

District Court, which makes it a litigant and clearly an “interested person” within the meaning of 

section 1782.

B. Discretionary Factors

The court now turns to the question of whether the four discretionary factors identified by 

the Supreme Court weigh in favor of or against issuance of the subpoena.

The Supreme Court has indicated that when the party from whom discovery is sought is 

not a participant in the foreign proceeding, the first factor weighs in favor of granting the 

application. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 264. As the Court explained:

when the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the 

foreign proceeding . . . , the need for § 1782(a) aid generally is not as 

apparent as it ordinarily is when evidence is sought from a 

nonparticipant in the matter arising abroad. A foreign tribunal has 

jurisdiction over those appearing before it, and can itself order them 

to produce evidence. In contrast, nonparticipants in the foreign 

proceeding may be outside the foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional reach; 

hence, their evidence, available in the United States, may be 

unobtainable absent § 1782(a) aid. 

Id. Here, EverStream is not a participant in the proceedings before the Tokyo District Court. 

Hiyama Decl. ¶ 9. Thus, the first factor weighs in NCD’s favor.

The second factor examines the nature and receptivity of the foreign tribunal. NCD has 

presented the declaration of an attorney licensed to practice in Japan who states that the “evidence 

sought is consistent with the type of discovery available in the Tokyo Action.” Hiyama Decl. ¶ 

10. The Japanese attorney also “anticipate[s] that the evidence will be admissible in the Tokyo 

Action.” Id. at ¶ 8. NCD has provided adequate evidence that the Tokyo District Court will be 

receptive to the evidence it seeks here, so this factor weighs in favor of NCD. 

With respect to the third factor, there is nothing to suggest that NCD is attempting to 

circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. NCD’s attorney in Japan attests that “EverStream 

is not a party or participant in the Tokyo Action, is beyond the jurisdictional reach of the Tokyo 

Case 4:18-mc-80208-DMR Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 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

District Court, and cannot be compelled to produce documents in the Tokyo Action.” Hiyama 

Decl. ¶ 9. Additionally, there is no evidence of any barrier to seeking discovery directly from 

EverStream other than lack of jurisdictional reach. This factor therefore weighs in favor of NCD.

The fourth factor examines whether the requested discovery is “unduly intrusive or 

burdensome.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 265. “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 Application of Qualcomm Inc., 162 F. 

Supp. 3d 1029, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Here, four of the eight categories of documents and three 

of the seven deposition topics in the proposed subpoenas appear to be tailored to documents and 

information concerning EverStream’s relationship with NCD. However, Requests for Production 

(“RFP”) Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 8 and Deposition Topics Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not appear to be narrowly 

tailored to the dispute, based upon the evidence submitted to the court in the amended application. 

See Am. Appl. Ex. B, C. 

RFP No. 3 requests communications between EverStream and third parties regarding 

NCD’s work on other projects, without explaining how these other projects relate to the Tokyo 

Action:

Communications by You to third parties—including, but not limited 

to, [14 individuals and entities and their affiliates or employees]—

concerning NCD, NCD’s performance, NCD’s fees, the projects that 

the Service Agreements concern (projects including, but not limited 

to, those commonly referred to as SK Shirakawa, Osaki, Kurokawa, 

Aomori, Susami, Sukagawa, Tano, Ikoma, Yumuta, and Otake), any 

attempts by You to seek discounts from NCD, Your reasons for 

terminating the Service Agreements, or NCD’s relationship with 

INFLUX GK.

Am. Appl. Ex. B. Similarly, Deposition Topic No. 5 covers “[y]our representations to third 

parties, and representations by third parties made to You, about NCD, NCD’s performance, the 

projects which the Service Agreements concern, NCD’s fees, Your attempts to seek discounts 

from NCD, and NCD’s relationship with INFLUX GK.” Am. Appl. Ex. C. RFP No. 3 and 

Deposition Topic No. 5 encompass some communications and representations by EverStream to 

third-parties concerning NCD that appear to be relevant to the Tokyo Action. However, they also 

request all communications by EverStream to third parties regarding at least ten additional projects 

Case 4:18-mc-80208-DMR Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 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

for which there were also Service Agreements. These portions of the RFP and deposition topic are 

not narrowly tailored to the Tokyo Action because NCD has not provided information showing 

how documents and communications regarding these other projects bear on the dispute. The 

Tokyo Action involves solely the Service Agreement between NCD and Tohoku, and does not 

involve any of the ten additional projects or their respective Service Agreements. See Hiyama 

Decl. ¶ 4-5. Additionally, RFP No. 3 and Deposition Topic No. 5 are not narrowly tailored 

because they are unlimited by either time or content restrictions. The result is that they encompass 

every communication ever made by EverStream about the additional projects, even though NCD 

has made no showing as to the relevance of those communications. Therefore, RFP No. 3 and 

Deposition Topic No. 5 are unduly burdensome and intrusive as currently written.

NCD also fails to show that RFP Nos. 6, 7, and 8 are narrowly tailored, because they 

request documents and communications concerning subjects whose relevance is unclear from the 

evidence submitted with the amended application:

Documents and Communications concerning Atsushi Hoshino 

(“Hoshino”), including, but not limited to, Your relationship with 

Hoshino; NCD’s relationship with Hoshino; Hoshino’s role, 

performance and importance to NCD and its business; Hoshino’s role 

in connection with the Service Agreements; Hoshino’s holdings in 

NCD and Hoshino’s dismissal from NCD.

. . . .

Communications between You and Hoshino.

. . . .

Documents and Communications concerning any payment 

arrangements, either direct or indirect, between You and Pacific Solar 

GK.

Am. Appl. Ex. B. Similarly, Deposition Topics Nos. 4 and 6 request information regarding 

Hoshino and Pacific Solar GK. Id. at Ex. C. Neither the amended application nor the supporting 

declarations mention Atsushi Hoshino or Pacific Solar GK or discuss their significance to the 

Tokyo Action. Without any explanation or evidence supporting the relevance of these RFPs and 

deposition topics, the court concludes that they are not narrowly tailored and are therefore also 

unduly burdensome and intrusive. 

Case 4:18-mc-80208-DMR Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 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

Finally, NCD seeks to examine EverStream on Deposition Topic No. 7, which is “[y]our 

Communications with NCD, investors, and/or third parties.” Am. Appl. Ex. C. While the portion 

of the topic seeking testimony about EverStream’s communications with NCD appears relevant to 

the Tokyo Action, the topic is unlimited by time or subject matter. As written, it is not narrowly 

tailored. 

As three of the four discretionary Intel factors weigh in favor of granting NCD’s 

application, the application is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: NCD may serve its 

proposed subpoenas on EverStream with the exception of RFP Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 8, and Deposition 

Topics Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7. The application is denied without prejudice as to those specific 

discovery requests. NCD may file a new application before the undersigned, using the same case 

number. 

This order does not preclude EverStream from contesting the subpoenas as approved. The 

Ninth Circuit has held that applications for subpoenas pursuant to section 1782 may be filed ex 

parte because “[t]he witnesses can . . . raise[ ] objections and exercise[ ] their due process rights by

motions to quash the subpoenas.” In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 

(9th Cir. 1976). EverStream shall therefore have thirty (30) calendar days after the service of the 

subpoenas to contest them. The return date on the subpoenas must be set at least 30 days after 

service.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:18-mc-80208-DMR Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, the court grants in part NCD’s ex parte application. NCD 

may serve a finalized version of its subpoenas attached as Exhibits B and C to the application, but 

must remove RFP Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 8, Deposition Topics 4, 5, 6, and 7. The subpoenas must 

include a return date at least thirty days after service to allow EverStream to contest the subpoenas

if it desires. NCD must also serve a copy of this order on EverStream at the same time as the 

subpoenas.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2019

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:18-mc-80208-DMR Document 8 Filed 03/06/19 Page 8 of 8