Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80150/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80150-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Digital Shape Technologies, Inc.
Petitioner
Glassdoor, Inc.
Respondent
Radomir Nikolajev
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

DIGITAL SHAPE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

and RADOMIR NIKOLAJEV

Case No. 16-mc-80150-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

AN ORDER TO CONDUCT 

DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN 

LEGAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1782

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Applicants Digital Shape Technologies, Inc. (“DST”), and Radomir Nikolajez (“Nikolajez) 

filed an ex parte application to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (Dkt. No. 1.) That 

statute allows a district court to order a person residing or found within its district to produce 

documents or provide testimony for use in a foreign legal proceeding, unless the disclosure would 

violate a legal privilege. Here, DST and Nikolajez seek an order granting them permission to 

issue a subpoena to obtain documents and testimony from a custodian of records from non-party 

Glassdoor, Inc. (“Glassdoor”). Upon consideration of the application and the relevant legal 

authority, the Court GRANTS the application.

BACKGROUND

DST, and its president, Nikolajev, (together “DST”) are plaintiffs in an action in the 

Quebec Superior Court, District of Montreal, Canada (the “Canadian Action”). See Digital Shape 

Technologies Inc. and Radomir Nikolajev v. Kelly Mikulec, Case No. 500-17-080160-131. In the 

Case 3:16-mc-80150-JSC Document 4 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 6
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

action, DST alleges that Kelly Mikulec, a former DST employee, provided false and defamatory 

statements on Glassdoor’s Canadian website about DST and Nikolajev. (Dkt. No. 2 at ¶ 6.) 

Glassdoor is not a party to the Canadian Action.

DST sought documents from Glassdoor in support of its claim for damages. (Dkt. No. 3-1 

at ¶ 3.) Glassdoor declined to provide the documents voluntarily so DST filed an application in 

the Canadian Action to obtain the discovery. (Id.) In response, Glassdoor stated that it did not 

believe that it was subject to jurisdiction in Canada. (Id.; Ex. A at ¶ 5.) The Canadian court 

granted DST’s application on June 16, 2016 noting that Ms. Mikulec admitted she made the 

statements at issue (known as the “March 7, 2013 review”). (Id. at ¶ 4.) The court ordered 

Glassdoor to provide:

(1) a copy of all reviews, ratings and comments with respect to 

Digital Shape Technologies Inc, notwithstanding the fact that they 

have since been removed;

(2) the submission (posting) date and time of the reviews, ratings 

and/or comments as well as the period during which they were 

published;

(3) the email address and IP address of the user who posted the 

March 7, 2013 review and rating [], as well as the URL 

corresponding to their submission;

(4) the Google Analytics statistics reports relating to the March 7, 

2013 review and rating [], including the number of users having 

reviewed the March 7, 2013 review and rating [], the time and date

of viewing, the city associated with the IP addresses of these users, 

as well as their IP addresses;

(5) the number of individuals having indicated that the March 7, 

2013 review and rating [] was “helpful”, their IP addresses as well 

as the URL corresponding to the submission of such forms, and the 

submission date

(Dkt. No. 3-1 at ¶ 25.) The court also ordered “that the IP address be held under seal and be only 

available to the attorneys of the parties and their experts subject to complete confidentiality.” (Id. 

at ¶ 26.) On June 27, 2016, the court issued a rectified judgment which DST served by U.S. mail 

on Glassdoor. (Dkt. No. 3-1 at 8 (Ex. B).)

DST thereafter filed the underlying ex parte application in this Court on July 15, 2016. It 

asks the Court to grant the application for judicial assistance and permit DST “to subpoena 

documents from Glassdoor consistent with the order made by the Quebec court, as well as the 

testimony of a custodian of records to establish foundation for the documents.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 10.)

Case 3:16-mc-80150-JSC Document 4 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 6
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

LEGAL STANDARD

Section 1782(a) provides, in pertinent 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). A litigant in a foreign action qualifies as an “interested person” under 

Section 1782. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004). To 

apply for discovery pursuant to Section 1782, a formal proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction need 

not be currently pending, or even imminent. Id. 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 Section 1782 even though the applicant’s complaint 

was still only in the investigative stage). When it comes to requests directly from foreign courts, 

district courts typically handle Section 1782 discovery requests in the context of an ex parte

application for an order appointing a commissioner to collect the information. See In re Letters 

Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that the 

subpoenaed parties may object and exercise due process rights by bringing motions to quash the 

subpoenas after the court issues a Section 1782 order); see, e.g., In re Request for Int’l Judicial 

Assistance from the Nat’l Ct. Admin. of the Republic of Korea, No. C15-80069 MISC LB, 2015 

WL 1064790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2015) (granting ex parte application for a Section 1782 

order); In re Request for Int’l Judicial Assistance from the 16th Family Ct. of the Supreme Ct. of 

Justice of the Fed. Dist., No. 14-mc-80083-JST, 2014 WL 1202545, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 

2014) (same). The same is generally true for Section 1782 applications brought by private parties. 

See, e.g., Mak v. For the Issuance of Discovery in Aid of Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. 1782, No. C 12-80118 SI, 2012 WL 2906761, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012) (denying 

motion to quash after having granted ex parte application for deposition subpoena under Section 

1782); Order, In re Gianasso, No. 3:12-mc-80029 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2012), ECF No. 6; Order, In 

Case 3:16-mc-80150-JSC Document 4 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 6
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

re Am. Petroleum Inst., No. 5:11-mc-80008 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2011), ECF No. 6. 

The court retains wide discretion to grant discovery under Section 1782. See Intel, 542 

U.S. at 260-61. In exercising its discretion, the court considers the following factors: (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.” Id. at 264-65; see also In re Request for Judicial Assistance 

from the Seoul Dist. Crim. Ct., 555 F.2d 720, 723 (9th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted) (noting that 

the only requirements explicit in the statute are that the request be made by a foreign or 

international tribunal, and that the testimony or material requested be for use in a proceeding in 

such a tribunal, but also holding “that the investigation in connection with which the request is 

made must related to a judicial or quasi-judicial controversy”). 

“A district court’s discretion is to be exercised in view of the twin aims of [Section] 1782: 

providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation, and encouraging foreign 

countries by example to provide similar assistance to our courts.” Nat’l Ct. Admin. of the Republic 

of Korea, 2015 WL 1064790, at *2 (citing Schmitz v. Bernstein Libehard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 

F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2004)). The party seeking discovery need not establish that the information 

sought would be discoverable under the foreign court’s law or that the U.S. would permit the 

discovery in an analogous domestic proceeding. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 247, 261-63.

ANALYSIS

A. Statutory Authority

DST’s application satisfies the minimum requirements of Section 1782. First, Glassdoor’s 

principal place of business is in Mill Valley, California which is within the Northern District of 

California. Second, the requested discovery is for use in a Canadian lawsuit, which is a 

proceeding before a foreign tribunal. With respect to the third factor, Section 1782 plainly states 

that discovery orders may issue upon the request of either a foreign tribunal or an interested party. 

Case 3:16-mc-80150-JSC Document 4 Filed 07/20/16 Page 4 of 6
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

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). An “interested person” seeking to invoke the discovery mechanism of 

Section 1782 may include “litigants before foreign or international tribunals . . . as well as any 

other person . . . [who] merely possesses a reasonable interest in obtaining [judicial] assistance.” 

Intel, 542 U.S. at 256-57 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Applicants are parties to the 

foreign proceedings underlying this case; indeed, they are the plaintiffs in an action alleging that 

defamatory statements were made regarding them on Glassdoor’s Canadian site. (See Dkt. No. 3-

1.) Accordingly, DST has a “reasonable interest” in obtaining judicial assistance and, therefore, 

may apply for judicial assistance pursuant to Section 1782. See Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. 

Fibrogren, Inc., 793 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2015). Lastly, the instant ex parte application is an 

acceptable method of requested discovery under Section 1782. See Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 

539 F.2d at 1219.

B. Discretion

The Court finds good cause to exercise its discretion to authorize the requested discovery. 

Glassdoor is not a party to the Canadian Action, and therefore discovery regarding the March 7, 

2013 statement and its audience is unattainable absent Section 1782(a) aid. The Canadian court’s 

order authorizing issuance of the subpoena demonstrates that the request is not an attempt to 

circumvent proof-gathering restrictions in either Canada or the United States, and that the 

Canadian court would be receptive to an order from this Court. Each of these factors supports a 

finding of good cause to grant the requested discovery.

As for whether the request is unduly burdensome, the Court finds it is not given that the 

proposed subpoena is limited to information relating to the March 7, 2013 post—which the 

defendant in the Canadian Action, Ms. Mikulec, admits making—the audience which viewed the 

post, and any identifying information such as IP addresses. And, without more information, the 

Court cannot conclude that it is unduly intrusive. While Glassdoor has not had an opportunity to 

respond to the application or to raise any arguments about the burden or intrusion the subpoena 

imposes on it, applications for Section 1782 subpoenas 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 at 1219. Glassdoor shall 

Case 3:16-mc-80150-JSC Document 4 Filed 07/20/16 Page 5 of 6
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

therefore have 30 calendar days after the service of the subpoena to contest it. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS DST’s application and authorizes 

service of a subpoena consistent with the order made by the Canadian court. The return date of the 

subpoena shall be set after the expiration of the 30-day period to allow Glassdoor to contest the 

subpoena if it has a good faith basis to do so. Should Glassdoor file a motion to quash, this action 

shall automatically be reopened.

This Order disposes of Docket Number 1. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-mc-80150-JSC Document 4 Filed 07/20/16 Page 6 of 6