UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: ________________ 

In re Application of 

ITAÚ UNIBANCO S/A, 

Applicant, 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Judicial 

Assistance in Obtaining Evidence for Use in 

Foreign and International Proceedings Pending in 

The Federative Republic of Brazil. 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––/ 

EX PARTE PETITION OF ITAÚ UNIBANCO S/A FOR JUDICIAL 

ASSISTANCE IN AID OF FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 

ITAÚ UNIBANCO S/A (“Itaú”) respectfully submits this Ex Parte Petition for Judicial 

Assistance in Aid of Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (the “Petition”) and 

requests the issuance of an order permitting Itaú to obtain documentary and testimonial discovery 

from Martha L. Mendez, P.A. d/b/a Title Team (the “Discovery Target”) for use in pending legal 

proceedings in Brazil. In support of this Petition, Itaú states as follows: 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

1. The facts relevant to this Petition are set forth below and in the accompanying

Declaration of Itaú’s Brazilian attorney, David Pereira Cardoso, attached hereto as Exhibit A (the 

“Declaration”). The facts stated in the Declaration are fully incorporated herein by reference and 

provide a much more detailed background than the summary that follows below. 

2. Between 2015 and 2020, Itaú, a Brazilian financial institution, entered into various

loan agreements, import credit agreements, and derivative contracts with a Brazilian company 

named MapTrade Indústria e Comércio de Produtos Ltda. (“MapTrade”). Declaration ¶¶ 3, 14. 

1:22-MC-21664-XXXX

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 1 of 16
2 

Those loan agreements, import credit agreements, and derivative contracts were personally 

guaranteed by MapTrade’s shareholders, Mr. Ronaldo Gomes Guerra Barcellos and Mr. Marcelo 

Miranda Bittencourt (“Mr. Bittencourt”) (MapTrade’s shareholders together, the “Guarantors”). 

Id. ¶ 3. 

3. By March 2020, the loan agreements, import credit agreements, and derivative 

contracts were breached due to MapTrade’s and the Guarantors’ failure to pay the amounts owed 

to Itaú when they came due. Id. ¶¶ 4, 14. As of March 2020, Maptrade and its Guarantors owed 

Itaú over BRL 50 million Reais (approximately U.S. $10 million), leaving Itaú with no choice but 

to initiate legal action in Brazil to recover the significant debt. Id. ¶ 4. 

4. Itaú filed two separate legal proceedings before the 15th Lower Civil Court of the 

City of São Paulo in the Federative Republic of Brazil (the “Brazilian Court”) to enforce the 

various debts owed (together, the “Foreign Proceedings”). Id. ¶ 5. 

5. The first case, styled Itaú Unibanco S/A v. MapTrade Indústria e Comércio de 

Produtos Ltda., Claim No. 1083075-13.2020.8.26.0100, was initiated on September 8, 2020, and 

seeks recovery of approximately BRL 48,642,131.34 Reais (adjusted debt calculated as of April 

2022) resulting from the defaulted loan agreements, the defaulted import credit agreements, the 

defaulted derivative contracts, default interest, monetary adjustment, and attorney’s fees (the “First 

Action”). Id. ¶¶ 5, 15. 

6. The second case, styled Itaú Unibanco S/A v. MapTrade Indústria e Comércio de 

Produtos Ltda., Claim No. 1005186-46.2021.8.26.0100, was initiated on January 21, 2021, and 

seeks recovery of approximately BRL 6,263,111.07 Reais (adjusted debt calculated as of April 

2022) resulting from the breach of additional derivative contracts, monetary adjustment, and 

attorney’s fees (the “Second Action”). Id. ¶¶ 5, 19. 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 2 of 16
3 

7. The same defendants are named in each of the Foreign Proceedings, namely, 

MapTrade, the Guarantors, and certain companies controlled by the Guarantors (i.e., Maac 

Participações Ltda., Amca Participações Ltda., and Ramt Participações Ltda.) (collectively, the 

“Foreign Defendants”). Id. ¶ 7. 

8. The Foreign Proceedings are on-going before the Brazilian Court and no final 

judgments have been entered to date. Id. ¶¶ 6, 22. In each of those proceedings, the Brazilian 

court has permitted Itaú to “reverse-pierce” the corporate veil among the Foreign Defendants. Id. 

¶ 24. In other words, the Brazilian Court has determined that the Guarantors have abused corporate 

formalities and comingled funds and assets such that the companies they control should also be 

deemed liable for the debt owed to Itaú. Id. The Brazilian Court has allowed Itaú to look beyond 

the individual defendants to their corporations’ assets. 

9. Furthermore, in each of the Foreign Proceedings, the Brazilian Court has permitted 

Itaú to search for, identify, and have the Foreign Defendants’ assets appraised in different 

jurisdictions. Id. ¶¶ 9, 25-26. Such information is key for uncovering potential fraudulent transfers 

or other efforts undertaken by the Foreign Defendants—in particular the individual Guarantors—

to avoid paying the significant debt owed to Itaú by hiding assets outside of the jurisdiction of 

Brazilian courts. Id. ¶ 41. 

10. Itaú’s investigative efforts have uncovered that one of the Foreign Defendants, Mr. 

Bittencourt, may have significant liquid assets resulting from the sale of three real estate properties 

in Florida indirectly owned by him through Bittencourt, LLC, a Delaware entity which he solely 

owns. Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 27-35. In particular, Itaú has learned that Mr. Bittencourt, through Bittencourt 

LLC, recently sold three pieces of real estate in Florida in 2021, earning a combined sum of 

$1,313,000 (none had mortgages). Id. As relevant to this Petition, in December 2021, Bittencourt 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 3 of 16
4 

LLC sold a condominium in Aventura, Florida, for upwards of $560,000.1 Id. ¶ 30. Mr. 

Bittencourt has not disclosed those funds to the Brazilian Court, and it is unknown where the funds 

are being held currently. Id. ¶¶ 11, 42. 

11. Thus, in order for Itaú to fully ascertain the pool of assets belonging to Mr. 

Bittencourt to so inform the Brazilian Court, Itaú hereby seeks discovery relating to the sale of the 

Aventura real estate property, including the disposition of the proceeds, which are believed to be 

controlled by Mr. Bittencourt. Id. ¶¶ 12, 29, 40. To that end, Itaú seeks assistance from this Court 

to obtain documentary and testimonial evidence (if necessary) from the title company that handled 

the sale of the Aventura property, namely the Discovery Target. Id. ¶ 43. 

12. The Discovery Target is believed to have information indicative of where the funds 

from the sale of the Aventura property were deposited. Id. ¶¶ 12, 37. Itaú intends to use that 

discovery in the Foreign Proceedings to inform the Brazilian Court of Mr. Bittencourt’s assets and 

to have them appraised for future attachment or garnishment. Id. ¶ 40. 

13. Itaú proposes to serve the Discovery Target with a subpoena in a form substantially 

similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit B. Id. ¶ 39. As reflected in the proposed subpoena, the 

document requests and topics of examination for deposition are narrowly tailored to focus on 

gathering key information relating to where the proceeds of the sale have been deposited and may 

be found. Id. ¶ 48. 

 

1

 Bittencourt LLC also sold two other real estate properties in Kissimmee, Florida in 2021. 

Declaration ¶¶ 33, 35. Because those properties are located outside of this District, Itaú is filing a 

parallel Section 1782 petition in the Middle District of Florida to obtain discovery related to those 

sales. Id. ¶ 38. 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 4 of 16
5 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

14. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1782 as this is an application for discovery seeking the production of documents and testimony 

located within this District by a party in proceedings currently taking place and pending before the 

Brazilian Court for use in those foreign proceedings. 

15. The Discovery Target is located at 2600 S. Douglas Road, Suite 506, Coral Gables, 

Florida 33134. See Exhibit C. 

16. Venue in this District is appropriate because the Discovery Target is found in this 

District and the actual discovery sought also is located within this District. 

ARGUMENT

As detailed below, Itaú meets the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, as well as 

the discretionary factors discussed in the relevant case law. Itaú thus respectfully requests that this 

Petition for discovery be granted forthwith. 

I. Standard for Granting Section 1782 Petition 

“Section 1782 is the product of congressional efforts, over the span of nearly 150 years, to 

provide federal-court assistance in gathering evidence for use in foreign tribunals.” Intel Corp. v. 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004). “Congress substantially broadened the 

scope of assistance federal courts could provide for foreign proceedings” pursuant to Section 1782 

to include “documentary and other tangible evidence as well as testimony.” Id. at 247-48. 

Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit repeatedly has recognized the liberal policy in favor of 

granting petitions for judicial assistance under Section 1782. See, e.g., Glock v. Glock, Inc., 797 

F.3d 1002, 1007 (11th Cir. 2015) (“The current embodiment of the [Section 1782] law reflects the 

policy choice to provide efficient means of assistance in our federal courts for litigants involved 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 5 of 16
6 

in international litigation and to prompt foreign courts to follow our generous example and provide 

similar assistance to our court systems.”) (quotations omitted); In re Application of Consorcio 

Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 747 F.3d 1262, 1269 

(11th Cir. 2014) (“the history of Section 1782 reveals Congress’ wish to strengthen the power of 

district courts to respond to requests for international assistance”) (quotation omitted, emphasis in 

original); In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming order granting discovery 

under Section 1782 and citing Hans Smit, American Assistance to Litigation in Foreign and 

International Tribunal: Section 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S.C. Revisited, 25 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & 

Com. 1, 9 (1998) for the proposition that “[t]he purpose of Section 1782 is to liberalize the 

assistance given to foreign and international tribunals”). 

The statute reads, in pertinent part: 

(a) 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) (2016). 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 6 of 16
7 

Courts have distilled Section 1782’s language into a two-part inquiry: first, whether a 

district court is authorized to grant relief under the statute; and second, whether the court should 

grant relief in its broad discretion. Consorcio, 747 F.3d at 1271; Pons v. AMKE Registered Agents, 

LLC, 835 F. App’x 465, 467-68 (11th Cir. 2020). A district court is authorized to grant relief when 

the following four statutory requirements are met: (1) the person from whom discovery is sought 

must reside or be found in the district in which the petition is filed; (2) the request must seek 

evidence, whether it be the “testimony or statement” of a person or the production of “a document 

or other thing;” (3) the request must be made “by a foreign or international tribunal” or by “any 

interested person;” and (4) the evidence must be “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or 

international tribunal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1331-32. 

Once the district court has determined that it is authorized to grant relief by meeting the 

statutory elements, it is free to grant relief in its broad discretion. “In making its determination, 

district courts must exercise their discretion with an eye towards the statute’s goals, i.e., providing 

efficient means of assistance to participants in international litigation and encouraging foreign 

countries by example to provide similar means of assistance to our courts.” In re N. Am. Potash, 

Inc., No. 12-20637-CV-WILLIAMS/Tur, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195703, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 

19, 2012) (internal citation and quotation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, No. 12-

20637-WILLIAMS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197945 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2013); see In re Pimenta, 

942 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (citing the same “twin aims of the statute”). “As a 

general matter, these considerations counsel heavily in favor of generous federal court assistance.” 

N. Am. Potash, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195703, at *14. 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 7 of 16
8 

The Supreme Court set forth various discretionary factors for courts’ consideration in Intel: 

(1) whether “the person from whom discovery is sought is a 

participant in the foreign proceeding,” because “nonparticipants in 

the foreign proceeding may be outside the foreign tribunal’s 

jurisdictional reach” and therefore their evidence may be 

“unobtainable absent § 1782(a) aid;” 

(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 § 1782(a) 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 § 1782(a) request is “unduly intrusive or 

burdensome.” 

542 U.S. at 264-65; Consorcio, 747 F.3d at 1272-73; Pons, 835 F. App’x at 467-68. All of the 

statutory and discretionary factors weigh in favor of granting this Petition. 

Furthermore, a Section 1782 petition typically is presented and granted ex parte in this 

District, to allow the applicant to serve the discovery requests. At that point, the discovery target 

can respond to the discovery, including raising any objections. See In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1329 

(describing the procedural history of the court’s granting of the ex parte petition, the serving of 

request for deposition, and the deponent’s motion in opposition to the deposition for the court’s 

review). 

II. Itaú’s Petition Meets the Section 1782 Statutory Requirements for Relief 

As shown below, all four statutory requirements for the granting of Section 1782 relief are 

easily satisfied here. 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 8 of 16
9 

A. The Type of Discovery Sought Is Permissible 

The type of discovery Itaú seeks in this Petition—documentary and testimonial, as reflected 

in the proposed subpoena attached as Exhibit B—is expressly permitted by the statute. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1782; see In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1336 (“Once discovery is authorized under § 1782, the federal 

discovery rules, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-36, contain the relevant practices and procedures for the taking 

of testimony and the production of documents); In re Setraco Nig. Ltd., No. 3:13-mc-16-32MCR, 

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56441, at *10 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2013) (granting petition seeking the 

production of documents and testimony). 

Further, federal courts in Florida specifically have authorized Section 1782 discovery to 

discover assets for use in a foreign proceeding. See In re Fundo De Liquidação Financeira — 

Fundo De Investimento Em Direitos Creditórios Não Padronizado, No. 8:21-mc-110-VMC-AAS, 

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183013, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 23, 2021) (documents and communications 

regarding financial relationships, properties, and assets considered permissible evidence under § 

1782); In re Maria Fernanda Rigail Pons, No. 19-23236-MC-LENARD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

66824, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2020) (affirming grant of 1782 application for evidence regarding 

foreign marital assets that petitioner claimed her ex-husband concealed and did not disclose in the 

foreign proceeding). Thus, this initial Section 1782 element is easily met. 

B. The Discovery Target and the Discovery Sought Are Found in this District 

Next, there can be no debate that the Discovery Target resides in or is found in this District. 

Courts have held that a company or person “resides or is found in” this District if it transacts 

business in this District or has an office here, or if it may otherwise be served with a subpoena in 

this District. See Consorcio, 747 F.3d at 1269 (it was undisputed that “JAS USA . . . has an office 

and does business in Miami and is therefore ‘found in the district of the district court ruling on the 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 9 of 16
10 

application for assistance’—namely, the Southern District of Florida.”); In re Godfrey, No. 17-

21631-CV, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29794, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2018), report and 

recommendation adopted sub nom. Ex parte in re Godfrey, No. 17-21631-Civ, 2018 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 237977 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2018) (“tag jurisdiction” is sufficient to meet Section 1782 

element, relying on In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171, 180 (2d Cir. 2002), which holds “that if a person 

is served with a subpoena while physically present in the district . . . then for purposes of [Section] 

1782(a), he is ‘found’ in that district”). 

According to the Florida Department of State’s public records, the Discovery Target is 

located in this District. See Exhibit C; Declaration ¶ 31. Thus, the Discovery Target necessarily 

resides within this District for purposes of this Court’s Section 1782 analysis. 

C. The Discovery Sought Is for Use in Foreign Proceedings 

The third statutory element also is easily met: the discovery sought by Itaú is for use in the 

Foreign Proceedings currently pending before the Brazilian Court. See Declaration ¶¶ 40-41. 

Pursuant to Brazilian civil procedure, it is Itaú’s duty to search for and identify the Foreign 

Defendants’ assets to satisfy the debt and to proceed with their attachment or garnishment. Id. ¶¶ 

8-9, 25, 40. The discovery sought in this Petition is for that purpose and will be presented to the 

Brazilian Court in the Foreign Proceedings. Id. ¶¶ 12, 29, 40. See Rothe v. Aballí, No. 20-12543, 

2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29174, at *5 (11th Cir. Sep. 27, 2021) (“Section 1782 does not require that 

every document discovered be actually used in the foreign proceeding”) (quoting Weber v. Finker, 

554 F.3d 1379, 1385 (11th Cir. 2009)). 

D. The Discovery Is Being Sought by an “Interested Person” 

Finally, as a plaintiff in the Foreign Proceedings, Itaú is, by definition, an “interested 

person” for purposes of Section 1782 analysis. See Declaration ¶¶ 15, 19. There is “[n]o doubt 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 10 of 16
11 

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

who may invoke [Section] 1782.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 256; Consorcio, 747 F.3d at 1269 (undisputed

that “[a]s a party to the dispute, [the Section 1782 applicant] plainly is an ‘interested person’”). 

Itaú possesses a reasonable interest in obtaining judicial assistance from this Court in order 

to obtain discovery located in this District to support its task in the Foreign Proceedings of 

searching for, identifying, and informing the Brazilian Court of the Foreign Defendants’ assets. 

Declaration ¶¶ 8-9, 40. Again, this information is key for uncovering potential fraudulent transfers 

or other efforts undertaken by the Foreign Defendants—in particular the individual Guarantors—

to avoid paying the significant debt owed to Itaú by hiding assets outside of the jurisdiction of 

Brazilian courts. Id. ¶ 41. 

III. Itaú’s Petition Meets the Section 1782 Discretionary Factors for Relief 

Given that the statutory elements for relief under Section 1782 plainly are met, this Court 

is free to grant the discovery sought in its discretion. As set forth below, the discretionary factors 

set forth by the Supreme Court in Intel weigh in favor of granting this Petition. 

A. The Discovery Target Is Not a Participant in the Foreign Proceedings 

First, the Discovery Target is not a party to the Foreign Proceedings, nor is there any 

expectation that it may be joined as a party in Brazil. See Declaration ¶ 46. In fact, it certainly 

will not be joined as a party by Itaú, and Itaú has no reason to believe that the Discovery Target 

would be subject to the Brazilian Court’s jurisdiction in any event. Id. Thus, this factor weighs in 

favor of granting the Petition as the discovery sought may be unobtainable without the aid of 

Section 1782. Id.; see Intel, 542 U.S. at 264 (“the need for [Section] 1782(a) aid generally is not 

as apparent as it ordinarily is when evidence is sought from a nonparticipant in the matter arising 

abroad.”). As the Supreme Court explained: “[a] foreign tribunal has jurisdiction over those 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 11 of 16
12 

appearing before it, and can itself order them to produce evidence. In contrast, nonparticipants in 

the Foreign Proceedings may be outside the foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional reach; hence, their 

evidence, available in the United States, may be unobtainable absent [Section] 1782 aid.” Id.

(internal citations omitted). 

B. The Brazilian Court’s Receptiveness to Judicial Assistance 

The next discretionary factor also weighs in favor of granting the discovery sought. As 

attested to by Itaú’s Brazilian counsel representing it in the Foreign Proceedings, there is no 

indication that the Brazilian Court would not be receptive to the documentary and testimonial 

evidence sought in this Petition. See Declaration ¶ 47; see In re Eurasian Bank Joint Stock Co., 

No. 3:15-mc-106-L-BN, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142866, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2015) (“In the 

absence of authoritative proof that a foreign tribunal would reject evidence obtained with the aid 

of section 1782, . . . the Court determines that the second factor does not weigh against an exercise 

of discretion in Eurasian’s favor.”); Weber v. Finker, No. 3:07-mc-27-J-32MCR, 2007 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 88142, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2007) (same). To the contrary, Itaú has a duty to locate 

the Foreign Defendants’ assets globally, and the Brazilian Court has issued orders to other 

jurisdictions to assist in that endeavor, indicating its welcoming of such discovery. Declaration ¶¶ 

8-9, 25, 40, 47. 

Moreover, federal courts have granted Section 1782 discovery for use in foreign 

proceedings pending in Brazil. See, e.g., In re Klein, No. 20-mc-203 (PKC), 2022 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 89720, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022) (“[O]n the second Intel factor, there is no dispute 

that the courts of Brazil are receptive to the assistance of the United States courts.”); In re Degens, 

No. 20-mc-237 (JGK) (RWL), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131536, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2020) 

(“There is no reason to believe the Brazilian Court would not be receptive to evidence gathered 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 12 of 16
13 

under § 1782, and no Brazilian rule, policy, or law prohibits or discourages the Brazilian Court 

from considering such evidence”); In re Atvos Agroindustrial Investimentos S.A., 481 F. Supp. 3d 

166, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“Applicant has made a showing that the Brazilian courts would be 

receptive to evidence obtained through the Application. Applicant’s Brazilian counsel states that 

‘[u]nder Brazilian law, the parties to a judicial proceeding are entitled to submit any kind of 

evidence to the court, as long as that evidence has not been improperly obtained.’ Respondents 

have failed to provide authoritative proof to the contrary. Thus, the Intel second factor weighs in 

favor of granting the Application.”); In re Postalis for an Order to Take Discovery, No. 18-mc497 (JGK), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215005, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2018) (“The parties do not 

dispute that Brazilian courts are receptive to the assistance of United States federal courts.”). 

C. This Discovery Request Does Not Attempt to Circumvent Foreign 

Restrictions 

 Similarly, Itaú’s Brazilian counsel has testified that the evidence sought in this Petition 

does not circumvent any proof-gathering restrictions under Brazilian law, and likely is admissible 

in the Foreign Proceedings. See Declaration ¶ 47. 

Moreover, to the extent that any of the documents requested of the Discovery Target are 

within the Foreign Defendants’ reach (such as communications exchanged between the Discovery 

Target and Mr. Bittencourt), that does not stifle the reach of Section 1782. “Even when the 

requested documents may be available in the foreign jurisdiction, there is no requirement to first 

seek discovery from the non-US tribunal or exhaust other options before applying to a district court 

for § 1782 discovery.” Godfrey, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29794, at *29 (internal citation omitted); 

see In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1333 n.12 (noting that, in Intel, the Supreme Court held that Section 

1782 does not impose a foreign-discoverability requirement and that “nothing in the text of 

[Section] 1782 limits a district court’s production-order authority to materials that could be 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 13 of 16
14 

discovered in the foreign jurisdiction if the materials were located there”) (quoting Intel, 542 U.S. 

at 260); In re Application of Mesa Power Group, LLC, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1304 (S.D. Fla. 

2012) (same). 

Indeed, “[a]bsent a persuasive showing that a [S]ection 1782 applicant [] is actively seeking 

to circumvent the foreign tribunal’s discovery methods and restrictions, . . . this factor does not 

counsel against [S]ection 1782 relief.” Mesa, 878 F. Supp. 2d at 1305; Rothe, 2021 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 29174, at *4 (clearly erroneous to impose an “exhaustion” requirement on Section 1782 

petitions). 

D. The Discovery Requests Are Not Unduly Intrusive or Burdensome 

Finally, the discovery sought in this Petition is not unduly intrusive or burdensome. As 

seen in the proposed subpoena attached as Exhibit B, Itaú seeks documentary and testimonial 

information that is or should be readily available to the Discovery Target on a few discrete topics 

relevant to identifying and tracing the disposition of the assets in this District belonging to one of 

the Foreign Defendants, namely, the proceeds of the sale of Mr. Bittencourt’s real estate property. 

See Declaration ¶ 48. The documents sought are of the nature kept in the ordinary course of 

business of the Discovery Target and lend themselves to easy identification and production. Id. 

In sum, all of the Intel discretionary factors weigh in favor of grating the Petition. 

IV. This Petition Should Be Granted Ex Parte

It is proper and in keeping with this District’s regular course of practice for this Petition to 

be granted ex parte. Indeed, Section 1782 petitions typically are presented and granted ex parte

to allow the applicant to serve the discovery requests. Once served with the subpoena, the 

discovery target can respond to the discovery, including raising any objections with this Court. 

See In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1329 (describing the procedural history of the court’s granting of the 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 14 of 16
15 

ex parte petition, the serving of request for deposition, and the deponent’s motion in opposition to 

the deposition for the court’s review); In re Braga, 272 F.R.D. 621, 625 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“Rural’s 

first argument, that the § 1782 Application and the order granting it ex parte, constituted an 

‘unexpected and unfair surprise,’ is insufficient to support vacateur here. . . . most § 1782 

applications (at least in this district) are filed and decided ex parte.”); In re Ex parte Petition by 

AG, No. 21-mc-23671, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217214, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2021) (order 

granting ex parte petition for judicial assistance pursuant to § 1782); In re Novoship (UK) Ltd., 

No. 20-60876-MC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107257, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 17, 2020) (same); In re 

Fundo De Liquidação Financeira — Fundo De Investimento Em Direitos Creditórios Não 

Padronizado, No. 8:21-mc-110-VMC-AAS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183013, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 

23, 2021) (same); In re Application of Piraeus Bank, Case No. 20-mc-210 (RA), 2020 WL 

2521322 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020) (granting ex parte application brought by Greek financial 

institution seeking subpoenas of bank records in support of proceedings in London, finding ex 

parte that the mandatory and discretionary factors had been met and granting permission for 

subpoenas to be served). 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Itaú respectfully requests that this Court enter an order granting this 

Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782; granting Itaú leave to serve the Discovery Target with a 

subpoena substantially similar to that attached as Exhibit B; reserving jurisdiction to grant Itaú 

leave to serve any additional subpoenas as may be necessary to obtain the evidence described in 

this Petition; and granting any other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

DATED: May 31, 2022 REED SMITH LLP 

 By: /s/ Edward M. Mullins 

Edward M. Mullins (FBN 863920) 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 15 of 16
16 

Email: emullins@reedsmith.com 

Ana M. Barton (FBN 85721) 

Email: abarton@reedsmith,com 

1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 9th Floor 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: +1 786 747 0200 

Facsimile: +1 786 747 0299 

Attorneys for Applicant Itaú Unibanco S/A 

Case 1:22-mc-21664-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 16 of 16