Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-mc-00050/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-mc-00050-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Ontario Principals’ Council, Gordana Stefulic, Vivian Mavrou, and Varla Abrams 

(collectively “Applicants”) have filed an ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for 

leave to conduct discovery in the District of Arizona for use in contemplated litigation in 

Ontario, Canada, and for an order protecting disclosure of such discovery. (Doc. 1.) For 

the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the application. 

I. Background 

 Applicants are comprised of a professional association of elementary and 

secondary school professionals, a member of that association, and school administrators 

in Ontario, Canada. Applicants allege that they have been the target of defamatory 

comments anonymously posted on Topix, LLC (“Topix”) websites, accusing them of acts 

of misconduct and illegal activity, including sexual acts involving minor students. 

Applicants refute the allegations and seek to bring a defamation suit against the online 

posters in Canada. 

 Applicants have obtained certain internet protocol (“IP”) addresses associated with 

Topix user postings. (Doc. 2 at 3.) Applicants assert that Giglinx, an internet service 

provider (“ISP”) incorporated in Arizona, was linked to three of the user IP addresses 

In re Application of Ontario Principals’ 

Council, Gordana Stefulic, Vivian 

Mavrou and Varla Abrams, 

 

Applicants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

No. MC-14-00050-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:14-mc-00050-SPL Document 10 Filed 08/01/14 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 

disclosed: (1) “No communists allowed,” 69.31.103.138; (2) “ChrisCopyPasta,” 

198.144.116.133; and (3) “snail,” 69.22.184.106. (Doc. 2 at 4, 15-17, 37-58.)1

 Applicants 

move this Court to subpoena Giglinx to identify the subscribers of those IP addresses. 

II. Legal Standard 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, a district court may order a person residing within its 

district to produce documents for use in a foreign legal proceeding. The statute provides 

in relevant 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. By 

virtue of his appointment, the person appointed has power to 

administer any necessary oath and take the testimony or statement. The order may prescribe the practice and 

procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and 

procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal, 

for taking the testimony or statement or producing the document or other thing. 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. 

A person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing in violation 

of any legally applicable privilege. 

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). 

 Although 18 U.S.C. § 1782 does not categorically require that the information 

sought would be discoverable under the law governing the foreign proceeding or 

analogous domestic litigation, a “district court is not required to grant a § 1782(a) 

discovery application simply because it has the authority to do so.” Intel Corp., 542 U.S. 

 1

 The Court notes the tracking information provided by Applicants indicates “ISP: nLayer Communications.” (Doc. 2 at 42-43.) However, Giglinx appears to be the ISP organization to which the IP addresses were reassigned by nLayer Communications for use in their internal networks. See e.g., http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/ NET-69-22-184-0-1. 

Case 2:14-mc-00050-SPL Document 10 Filed 08/01/14 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 

at 263-4. In considering whether to grant a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 request, a district court 

considers several factors: (1) whether the “person from whom discovery is sought is a 

participant” in the foreign case; (2) the nature and character of the foreign proceeding, 

and whether the foreign court is receptive to judicial assistance from the United States; 

(3) whether the discovery request is an attempt to avoid foreign evidence-gathering 

restrictions; and (4) whether the discovery request is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” 

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264-66 (2004). 

III. Analysis 

 A. Satisfaction of Statutory Requirements 

 Applicants meet the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Giglinx is located 

in Scottsdale, Arizona and Applicants are interested persons who intend to seek relief by 

commencing suit in Ontario, Canada. In order to apply for discovery pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1782, a formal proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction need not be currently 

pending, or even imminent, as is the case here. Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 258-59. Instead, 

all that is necessary is that a “dispositive ruling” by the foreign adjudicative body is 

“within reasonable contemplation.” Id. at 259 (holding that discovery was proper under § 

1782 even though the applicant’s complaint against the opposing party was only in the 

investigative stage). Further, an ex parte application is an acceptable method for seeking 

discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. See In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., 

Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that the subpoenaed parties 

may raise objections and exercise their due process rights by bringing motions to quash 

the subpoenas). 

 B. Satisfaction of Discretionary Factors 

 In considering the Intel factors, discovery is sought from Giglinx, which will not 

be a participant to the foreign proceedings. The evidence may be unattainable by the 

Canadian court but would be within this district court’s jurisdiction and accessible in the 

United States. Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264. Nothing in Applicants’ request suggests it is 

an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions, nor does the Court find the 

Case 2:14-mc-00050-SPL Document 10 Filed 08/01/14 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 

request runs afoul of policy of the United States. See id. at 265. Further, in considering 

the nature and character of the foreign investigation, the information sought has the 

potential to be relevant to the contemplated proceedings. However, while Applicants 

generally satisfy these first Intel factors, the Court concludes they are significantly 

outweighed by the burden of the request. 

 First, the Court is unable to determine the terms of the discovery sought by 

Applicants because their proposed subpoena names companies and IP addresses not 

subject to the instant Giglinx request. (See Doc. 1-1, “Attachment 1.”) Second, assuming 

arguendo that the attached subpoena is merely a filing error, Applicants have nonetheless 

failed to show any reasonable likelihood that the subpoenaed party would have the 

information they are seeking, in that, they have not shown that Giglinx’s disclosures 

would uncover the identity of any actual defendant online user. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 

629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). 

 Applicants show nothing to demonstrate that the Giglinx subscriber and the 

defendant Topix user will be the same individual. The potential to draw numerous 

innocent internet users into the litigation, placing a burden upon them, outweighs 

Applicants’ need for the discovery. Granting Applicants the form of relief that it seeks 

would impermissibly allow them to subpoena an ISP to obtain the detailed personal 

information of unknown numbers of unrelated individuals that Applicants could never 

make party to its foreign suit and potentially subject them to onerous, invasive discovery. 

This risk is evident by Applicants’ failure to previously obtain this information despite 

the series of other similar discovery requests sought in other district courts throughout the 

United States. See In re ex parte Application of Ontario Principals’ Council, 5:13–mc–

80237–LHK–PSG, 2013 WL 6073517 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013); In re Application of 

Ontario Principals’ Council, 2:13-mc-00120-LKK-KJN, 2013 WL 6844545 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 23, 2013); In Re Application of Ontario Principals’ Council, 5:14-mc-80186-BLF 

(N.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2014). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its discretion and will 

deny the application. Accordingly, 

Case 2:14-mc-00050-SPL Document 10 Filed 08/01/14 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 

IT IS ORDERED that the ex parte application (Doc. 1) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 1st day of August, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-mc-00050-SPL Document 10 Filed 08/01/14 Page 5 of 5