UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: _________________ 

IN RE APPLICATION OF 

COLOMBO AGROINDÚSTRIA S.A., 

Applicant, 

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

Assistance in Obtaining Evidence for Use in 

Foreign and International Proceedings to be filed 

in the Federative Republic of Brazil. 

_______________________________________/ 

EX PARTE PETITION OF COLOMBO AGROINDÚSTRIA S.A. FOR JUDICIAL 

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

Colombo Agroindústria S.A. (“Colombo”) respectfully submits this Ex Parte Petition (the 

“Petition”) for Judicial Assistance in Aid of Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 

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

discovery from Mr. Eloy Rodrigo Colombo (the “Discovery Target”) for use in two foreign 

criminal and civil proceedings that Colombo intends to file in Brazil. In support of this Petition, 

Colombo states as follows: 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

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

Declaration of Arthur Gonzalez Cronemberger Parente (“Declaration”), attached here as Exhibit 

A. The facts stated in the Declaration are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Colombo seeks assistance from this Court to obtain documentary and testimonial

evidence from the Discovery Target. Declaration ¶¶ 5, 16, 29. 

1:22-mc-21670-XXXX

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 1 of 15
2 

Introduction 

3. As set forth below, Colombo contends that the Discovery Target defamed it by 

emailing certain of Colombo’s creditors and falsely stating that Colombo had committed 

accounting, tax, legal and creditors’ fraud. Id. ¶ 7. Colombo intends to file two actions against the 

Discovery Target in Brazil and needs the discovery requested in the proposed subpoena attached 

to the Petition (the “Requested Discovery”) to satisfy its initial burden of proof in both 

proceedings. Id. ¶¶ 11-16. Brazilian courts cannot directly compel the production of the Requested 

Discovery, which is located exclusively in this District. Id. ¶¶ 5, 21, 25, 28. 

The Parties 

4. Founded in the 1970s by the Colombo family, Colombo remains a family-owned 

company whose mission is to provide food, energy, and related products for sustainable 

development. Id. ¶ 6. 

5. The Discovery Target is a minority shareholder of Colombo and a member of the 

Colombo family. Id.

6. The Discovery Target resides in this District, where the Requested Discovery is 

located. Id. ¶¶ 5, 10. Indeed, on April 13, 2022, Colombo personally served the Discovery Target 

with a cease and desist letter at his residence at 401 69th Street, Apt. 1507, Miami Beach, Florida 

33141 (the “Letter”). Id. ¶ 10 (service affidavit attached as Exhibit 2 of Declaration). In the Letter, 

Colombo demanded that the Discovery Target (i) refrain from making any further defamatory 

statements against Colombo; and (ii) withdraw the false statements he already had made. Id. To 

date, the Discovery Target neither has replied to the Letter nor complied with Colombo’s requests. 

Id. 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 2 of 15
3 

7. Because the Discovery Target resides in this District and the Requested Discovery 

is in this District, Brazilian courts could not directly compel production of the Requested 

Discovery. Id. ¶ 21. Accordingly, this Petition is the only means by which Colombo can effectively 

and timely obtain the Requested Discovery. Id. ¶¶ 21-22, 28. 

The Defamation 

8. On March 10, 2022, the Discovery Target emailed Eco Securitizadora de Direitos 

Creditórios do Agronegócio S.A. and Simplific Pavarini Distribuidora de Títulos e Valores 

Mobiliários Ltda., two Brazilian financial institutions (the “Financial Institutions”), which are 

creditors of Colombo and are engaged in debentures issuance and other securities/financial 

transactions with Colombo. Id. ¶ 7. In the email (the “Email”), the Discovery Target falsely stated 

that Colombo had committed accounting, tax, legal and creditors’ fraud while performing its 

obligations under certain partnership agreements, thus causing Colombo substantial damages. Id. 

The Contemplated Foreign Proceedings and Brazilian Law 

9. The purpose of the discovery sought is to aid Colombo in bringing two actions 

against the Discovery Target in Brazil. Id. ¶¶ 11-16. The first is a criminal action against the 

Discovery Target for defamation pursuant to Article 139 of the Brazilian Criminal Code (the 

“Criminal Proceeding”), id. ¶¶ 12-13, and the second is a civil action against the Discovery Target 

for injunctive relief to bar him from making further defamatory statements about, and from taking 

any other actions against the business interests of, Colombo (the “Civil Proceeding”) (the Criminal 

and Civil Proceedings together are the “Foreign Proceedings”). Id. ¶¶ 14-15. 

10. Defamation is a crime pursuant to Article 139 of the Brazilian Criminal Code. Id. 

¶ 12. Unlike most criminal actions, a private plaintiff (as opposed to a prosecutor or other 

governmental authority) may prosecute an action for criminal defamation in Brazil. Id. To initiate 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 3 of 15
4 

and succeed in the Criminal Proceeding, Colombo must demonstrate that the Discovery Target 

knowingly made a false statement, with the intent of harming Colombo (as per Article 395 of the 

Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure (“BCCP”). Id. ¶ 13. 

11. Colombo must, at the outset of the Criminal Proceeding, supply evidence sufficient 

to satisfy the high standards of proof imposed by Brazilian courts as a prerequisite to accepting 

criminal charges brought by private plaintiffs. Id. Colombo plans to file the Criminal Proceeding 

as soon as it has obtained the evidence it needs via the instant Petition to meet this threshold 

burden. Id. ¶ 28. 

12. Colombo simultaneously will bring a civil injunctive proceeding seeking an order 

preventing the Discovery Target from making additional defamatory statements about Colombo, 

taking any other actions against Colombo and its business interests, and compensation for the 

damages caused by the Discovery Target’s false statements. Id. ¶ 14. 

13. The Civil Proceeding will be grounded in article 927 of the Brazilian Civil Code. 

Id. ¶ 15. To initiate and succeed in the Civil Proceeding, Colombo must, at the outset, present 

sufficient supporting evidence that (i) the Discovery Target committed illicit acts, (ii) these acts 

caused damage to Colombo; and (iii) there is causation between the Discovery Target’s acts and 

the damages incurred. Id. ¶ 15. Colombo plans to file the Civil Proceeding as soon as it has 

obtained the evidence it needs via the instant Petition to meet this threshold burden. Id. ¶ 28. 

14. Colombo has engaged the law firm of Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr e 

Quiroga Advogados, based in its São Paulo, Brazil to bring the Foreign Proceedings. Id. ¶ 11. 

The Requested Discovery 

15. Colombo proposes to serve the Discovery Target with a subpoena in a form 

substantially similar to the one attached here as Exhibit B. The subpoena seeks documents as well 

as testimony. 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 4 of 15
5 

16. The Requested Discovery is targeted specifically to evidence necessary to bring 

and prosecute the Foreign Proceedings, including the Discovery Target’s knowledge that his 

statements were false; his motives and intent to harm Colombo; whether the Discovery Target was 

working alone and, if not, with whom; if the Discovery Target has contacted other stakeholders in 

addition to the Financial Institutions or if it intends to contact other financial institutions with the 

same false statements; and the extent to which he damaged Colombo. Id. ¶ 30. 

17. 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 1324, 1329 

(11th Cir. 2007) (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); In re Novoship (UK) Ltd., No. 20-60876-MC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107257, 

at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 17, 2020) (granting petition ex parte). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

18. 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 to contemplated foreign proceedings. 

19. 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, Colombo meets the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, as well 

as the discretionary factors discussed in the relevant case law. Colombo thus respectfully requests 

that this Petition for discovery be granted. 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 5 of 15
6 

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. 

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 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) (“[T]he 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 at 1333 (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 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 6 of 15
7 

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). 

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. A district court has broad 

discretion 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); Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1331-

32. 

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

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 7 of 15
8 

participants in international litigation and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide 

similar means of assistance to our courts.” In re Application of N. Am. Potash, Inc., 12-20637-CV, 

2012 WL 12877816, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2012) (internal citation and quotation omitted), 

report and recommendation adopted, 12-20637, 2013 WL 12113190 (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 WL 12877816, at *5. 

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. 

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

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

satisfied here. 

A. The Type of Discovery Sought Is Permissible and Is Found in This District 

The first two statutory elements of Section 1782 are easily satisfied here. The type of 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 8 of 15
9 

discovery Colombo seeks—documentary and testimonial, as reflected in the subpoena attached as 

Exhibit B—is expressly permitted by the statute. Moreover, the Discovery Target and the 

Requested Discovery are in this District. Declaration ¶¶ 5, 10, 25. 

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 application for 

assistance’—namely, the Southern District of Florida.”); In re Emergency Ex Parte Application of 

Godfrey, 17-21631-CV, 2018 WL 1863749, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2018), report and 

recommendation adopted sub nom. In re Godfrey, 17-21631-CIV, 2018 WL 1859344 (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”). 

There can be no debate that the Discovery Target resides in and is found in this District. 

Public records reflect that he resides at 401 69th Street, Apt 1507 in Miami Beach, Florida 33141, 

where Colombo recently served him personally with a cease and desist letter. Declaration ¶ 10. 

B. The Discovery is for Use in Two Foreign Proceedings by an “Interested 

Person” 

The next two statutory elements also are easily met: the discovery sought is for use in the 

Foreign Proceedings, which Colombo will bring in the criminal and civil courts of the State of São 

Paulo, Brazil. See Declaration ¶¶ 11-18, 28; Halliwel Assets, Inc. v. Hornbeam Corp. (In re in re 

Bracha Found.), 663 F. App’x 755, 763 (11th Cir. 2016) (“The foreign proceeding for which a 

court may authorize discovery need not be “pending or imminent;” “the statute requires only that 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 9 of 15
10 

foreign proceedings “be within reasonable contemplation.”) (quoting Intel, 542 U.S. at 259); 

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

1262, 1271 (11th Cir. 2014) (possible criminal and civil proceedings by petitioner against former 

employees were reasonably contemplated); Gonzalez v. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Judicial 

Assistance in Obtaining Evidence for Use in Foreign Int’l Proceedings, No. 20-24628-MCUNGARO, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164306, at *12 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2021). 

Colombo is, by definition, an “interested person” because it will be the plaintiff in the 

Foreign Proceedings. Declaration ¶ 11. There is “[n]o doubt 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 (it was undisputed that “[a]s a party to the dispute, 

[the Section 1782 applicant] plainly is an ‘interested person’”). 

Colombo possesses a reasonable interest in obtaining judicial assistance from this Court to 

obtain discovery located in this District in aid of the Foreign Proceedings. 

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

As noted above, once this Court has determined that the statutory elements for relief under 

Section 1782 are met (they plainly are), it is free to grant discovery in its broad discretion. The 

discretionary factors set forth in Intel weigh in favor of granting this Petition. 

A. The Discovery Target’s Participation in the Foreign Proceedings 

The first Intel factor weighs in favor of granting the Petition even though Colombo intends 

to name the Discovery Target as a defendant in the Foreign Proceedings in Brazil. 

The fact that a discovery target is a party to the foreign proceeding is not dispositive of the 

first Intel factor. When the discovery target residing outside of the jurisdiction of the foreign 

tribunal, which is the scenario in the instant case, Declaration ¶¶ 10, 21, 25, the first Intel factor 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 10 of 15
11 

turns on the potential need for Section 1782 relief in view of the foreign tribunal’s authority (or 

lack thereof) to enforce a discovery order against the target. 

For example, in In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324, 1334-35 (11th Cir. 2007), the discovery target 

was a party to the foreign proceedings. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit noted, the first Intel factor 

“normally would favor [the target] and suggest that § 1782 assistance is not necessary” because 

the foreign tribunal “has jurisdiction over those appearing before it, and can itself order them to 

produce evidence.” Id. at 1334 (quoting Intel, 542 U.S. at 264). Nonetheless, the Court held that 

the first Intel factor favored the granting of discovery because, “[i]n this case, . . . [the discovery 

target] has left Panama and the Panamanian Court cannot enforce its order against [the discovery 

target] while [he] is in the United States.” Id. at 1334-35. 

 Similarly, in In re England/Bahamas, No. 20-MC-61696-SMITH/VALLE, 2021 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 142293, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2021), the applicants sought discovery from the 

executrix of their father’s estate in aid of a contemplated foreign proceeding against the estate. As 

executrix, the discovery target would be a defendant in the contemplated foreign proceeding. Id. 

at *14-15 Nonetheless, the district court found that the first Intel factor favored the applicants 

because “it remains unclear whether a foreign tribunal could enforce a pre-suit discovery order 

against [the executrix].” Id.; see also In re Godfrey, No. 17-21631-CV, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

29794, at *24 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2018) (first Intel factor did not favor target, who was a participant 

in the foreign proceeding, because target had been noncompliant with discovery obligations). 

Here, Colombo needs the Requested Discovery, which is located exclusively in this 

District, to overcome the threshold evidentiary burden imposed by Brazilian criminal and civil 

law, a prerequisite to bringing and adjudicating the Foreign Proceedings. Declaration ¶¶ 5, 13, 15, 

20-21, 28, Colombo must, and intends to, provide the Requested Discovery with each complaint 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 11 of 15
12 

in the Foreign Proceedings. Id. ¶ 20. However, because the Discovery Target is located in this 

District, Brazilian courts could not directly compel the Discovery Target to produce the Requested 

Discovery pre-suit, as is necessary here. Id. ¶ 21. Similarly, because the Requested Discovery is 

located exclusively in this District, Brazilian courts could not compel its production at this time. 

Thus, this factor weighs in favor of granting this Petition. Id. 

B. The Foreign Tribunals’ Receptiveness to Judicial Assistance 

The next discretionary factor also weighs in favor of granting discovery. Colombo’s 

counsel, who will represent it in the Foreign Proceedings in Brazil, has advised that there is no 

indication that the Brazilian civil and criminal courts would be unreceptive to the documentary 

and testimonial evidence sought through the instant Petition. Declaration ¶¶ 11, 26; In re MTS 

Bank, No. 17-21545-MC-WILLIAMS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107147, at *21 (S.D. Fla. June 27, 

2018) (“In the absence of authoritative proof that a foreign tribunal would reject evidence 

obtained with the aid of section 1782, a district court should err on the side of permitting 

discovery.”) (quoting In re Kreke Immobilien KG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160283, 2013 WL 

5966916, at *1); In re Application of Eurasian Bank Joint Stock Co., 3:15-mc-106-L-BN, 2015 

WL 6438256, *3 (N.D. Tex. October 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, 3:07-MC-27 J32MCR, 2007 WL 4285362, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 

2007) (same). On the contrary, Brazilian courts would welcome such evidence, particularly when, 

as here, it relates to criminal conduct over which Brazil has retained jurisdiction to adjudicate. 

Declaration ¶ 21. 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 12 of 15
13 

Moreover, several courts adjudicating 1782 petitions involving foreign proceedings in 

Brazil have found that this second factor weighs in favor of the applicant.1

C. This Request Does Not Attempt to Circumvent Foreign Restrictions 

 Next, Colombo’s counsel in Brazil has advised that the evidence sought through this 

Petition would not circumvent any proof-gathering restrictions under Brazilian law. See

Declaration ¶ 27. On the contrary, Article 5(II) of the Brazilian Constitution sets forth that no one 

shall be compelled to do or refrain from doing something except by force of law. Id. ¶ 26. Hence, 

only an explicit law or ruling could preclude foreign discovery. Id. No such law or ruling exists. 

Id. Rather, Article 372 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure sets forth that the judge may allow 

the use of evidence produced in another action. Id. In addition, Brazil is a signatory to the Hague 

Convention, id. ¶ 22, and thus is “likely receptive to American judicial assistance.” In re O'Keeffe, 

646 F. App’x 263, 267 (3d Cir. 2016). Several courts adjudicating 1782 petitions involving foreign 

proceedings in Brazil have found that this third factor weighs in favor of the applicant. Supra note 

1. 

 

1

In re De Melo Pimenta, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1288-89 (S.D. Fla. 2013); In re 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 *5 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 23, 2021); In re 

Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A., No. 22-MC-00022 (ALC)(SN), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64246, at 

*4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2022) (“there is no indication that the Civil Court of São Paulo would be 

unreceptive to the discovery requests or that the evidence sought would likely be inadmissible”); 

In re in re Degens, No. 20-mc-237 (JGK) (RWL), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131536, at *11-12 

(S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2020) (“There is no reason to believe the Brazilian Court would not be receptive 

to evidence gathered under § 1782, and no Brazilian rule, policy, or law prohibits or discourages 

the Brazilian Court from considering such evidence” and “while Brazilian procedures do not 

provide an effective means for Degens to obtain the discovery she seeks, there is no evidence or 

suggestion that the Brazilian Court or Brazilian law prohibits her from availing herself of foreign 

procedural mechanisms such as § 1782”); In re CA Inv. (Braz.) S.A., No. 19-mc-22 (MJD/SER), 

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61060, at *10 (D. Minn. Apr. 9, 2019); Fleischmann v. McDonald’s Corp. 

(In re Application for an Order for Judicial Assistance in a Foreign Proceeding in the Labor Court 

of Braz.), 466 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1032 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Medeiros v. Int’l Game Tech., No. 2:16-

cv-00877-JAD-NJK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54186, at *6-7 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2016). 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 13 of 15
14 

Moreover, “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 WL 

1863749, at *10; 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 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.” Id. at 1305. 

D. This Request Is Not Unduly Intrusive or Burdensome 

Finally, the Requested Discovery is not unduly intrusive or burdensome. As set forth in the 

proposed subpoena attached here as Exhibit B, Colombo seeks documentary and testimonial 

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

relevant to the Foreign Proceedings. Declaration ¶ 30. 

All the Intel discretionary factors weigh in favor of grating this Petition. 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Colombo respectfully requests that this Court enter the proposed order 

(attached here as Exhibit C) granting this Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782; granting Colombo 

leave to serve the Discovery Target with a subpoena substantially similar to that attached here as 

Exhibit B; reserving jurisdiction to grant Colombo leave to serve any additional subpoenas as may 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 14 of 15
15 

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) 

Email: emullins@reedsmith.com 

Daniel Alvarez Sox (FBN 108573) 

Email: dsox@reedsmith.com 

1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 9th Floor 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: +1 786 747 0200 

Facsimile: +1 786 747 0299 

Attorneys for Applicant Colombo Agroindústria 

S.A. 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 15 of 15