UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-MC-23408-WPD

In re Application of:

Magistrate Judge Becerra

MARIA CRISTINA ABUD VALECH,

Applicant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; DENYING APPLICATION

FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation on Application 

for Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, entered by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra (the 

“Report”) [DE 22], issued on December 31, 2020. The Court has conducted a de novo review 

of the Report [DE 22] and has carefully considered Applicant Maria Cristina Abud Valech 

(“Applicant”)’s Amended Objections In Toto [DE 26] and Certain Discovery Targets’ Response 

to Applicant’s Amended Objections [DE 29]. The Court is otherwise fully advised in the 

premises.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United 

States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the 

portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the 

specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be 

sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 

(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific 

Case 1:20-mc-23408-WPD Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 1 of 3
objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de 

novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 

783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x 

at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the 

record and the Applicant’s objections.

II. DISCUSSION

Applicant filed an Application for Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (the 

“Application” in the Southern District of Florida on August 17, 2020. See [DE 1]. Therein, 

Applicant sought discovery from over thirty individuals and entities relating to the assets of her

deceased husband, Jose Alfredo Anton Diaz (“Anton Diaz”)’s estate. Applicant intends to use 

the documents sought through the Application before Ecuadorian Courts to establish the extent 

of Anton Diaz’s estate and assert her claim to the spousal share of the estate. On September 25, 

2020, Certain Discovery Targets (Jeffrey Himmel, Patricia Anton Bucaram (Himmel), Maria 

Elena Anton Bucaram, Jose Anton Bucaram, and Janet Anton Bucaram) filed a Motion to Deny 

Section 1782 Application, arguing that the Court should deny the Application. See [DE 11]. 

Following full briefing, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report, recommending that the 

Court deny the Application [DE 1] and grant the Motion [DE 11]. See [DE 22]. The Court finds 

the Report to be very thorough and well-reasoned. Upon review of the record, the Court adopts

the reasoning, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and overrules the 

Objections of the Applicant. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Application 

does not meet the third prong of the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) and appears to 

be a fishing expedition based on speculation. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 

Case 1:20-mc-23408-WPD Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 2 of 3
analysis that the Application fails to satisfy the discretionary factors set forth in Intel Corp. v. 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004). The Court will deny the Application 

[DE 1] and grant the Motion [DE 11]. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 22] is hereby APPROVED; 

2. Applicant’s Amended Objections [DE 26] are hereby OVERRULED; 

3. The Application [DE 1] is hereby DENIED;

4. The Motion [DE 11] is hereby GRANTED;

5. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY any pending motions as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 18th day of March, 2021.

Copies furnished to:

Magistrate Judge Becerra

Counsel of record

Case 1:20-mc-23408-WPD Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 3 of 3