1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-MC-23619-ALTMAN/REID

IN RE APPLICATION OF DAILANE 

INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND MICHAEL MAILLIS 

FOR JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1782 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR 

JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 

This matter is before the Court on Dailane Investments Limited and Michael Maillis’s

application for an order granting them leave to issue subpoenas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. 

[ECF No. 1, 12]. Petitioners seek discovery from three nonparty witnesses who reside or can be 

found in the Southern District of Florida: (1) H.I.G. Capital LLC; (2) Sami Mnaymneh, the CEO 

of H.I.G. Capital LLC; and (3) Anthony Tamer, the Title Manager of H.I.G. Capital LLC

(“Respondents”). [ECF No. 1]. The requested discovery is for use in an anticipated proceeding 

before a foreign tribunal in Luxembourg. Petitioners served H.I.G. Capital LLC with copies of the 

Application and supporting documents on November 7, 2022. [ECF No. 10]. H.I.G. Capital LLC

has since filed no objection. After review of the Application and supporting documents, the Court 

GRANTS Petitioners’ Application for Judicial Assistance Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. [ECF 

No. 1]. 

BACKGROUND 

This matter involves capital restructuring and multiple private equity entities. According 

to the Application, the anticipated litigation will focus on the sale of companies within the Maillis 

Group, a packaging conglomerate founded by Petitioner Michael Maillis. Mr. Maillis and Dailane 

Investments—a minority shareholder in one of the relevant entities—allege that H.I.G. 

Case 1:22-mc-23619-RKA Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 1 of 7
2

Luxembourg Holdings 47 S.à r.l. (“HIG47”) abandoned its fiduciary duties to them by selling the 

remainder of the Maillis Group’s corporate assets to an affiliated fund at well below value. [ECF 

No. 4 at 2]. HIG47, a Luxembourg entity, is owned and controlled by respondent H.I.G. Capital

LLC, which is headquartered in Miami, Florida. Petitioners assert that H.I.G. Capital LLC, as the 

ultimate parent corporation of HIG47 and other related entities, controls relevant documents and 

communications regarding the sale of Maillis Group assets. [ECF No. 4 at 2].

In support of their Application, Petitioners filed declarations by their attorneys: Paul 

Ferguson, Richard Ledain Santiago, and Tara J. Plochochki. [ECF No. 5, 6, 7]. Mr. Santiago, a 

Luxembourg-licensed attorney and partner in Addleshaw Goddard LLP’s Luxembourg office

attested Petitioners intend to sue HIG47 in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. He further declared

that claims arising out of the underlying fiduciary agreement are subject to the exclusive 

jurisdiction of Luxembourg’s courts. [ECF No. 6 at 1]. Mr. Ferguson, a solicitor and principal of 

Addleshaw Goddard LLP, declared that his firm notified the Luxembourg entity—HIG47—of 

Petitioners’ potential claims. [ECF No. 5 ¶ 19]. Ms. Plochochki, in turn, averred that respondent 

H.I.G. Capital LLC is headquartered in this District as shown by records maintained by the

Division of Corporations of the State of Florida. [ECF No. 7 ¶ 3]. Those same records, Ms. 

Plochochki attests—identify Anthony Tamer as its manager. [ECF No. 7 ¶ 3]. And an H.I.G. 

website indicates Sami Mnaymneh is the company’s founder and CEO and is in Miami, Florida.

[ECF No. 7 ¶ 2]. 

Attached to Ms. Plochochki’s declaration are drafts of the proposed subpoenas directed to 

H.I.G. Capital, Sami Mnaymneh, and Anthony Tamer. [ECF No. 7-3, 7-5, 7-6]. The proposed 

subpoenas generally seek testimony and documents related to decisions made by the HIG 

Investment Committee, internal HIG communications pertaining to valuation of certain HIG 

Case 1:22-mc-23619-RKA Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 2 of 7
3

assets, communications with potential buyers concerning the auction of Maillis Group assets, and 

other similar information. [ECF No. 7, 4]. Though H.I.G. Capital LLC is not a party to the 

Luxembourg dispute, Petitioners contend H.I.G. Capital LLC controls the relevant evidence. 

Further, Petitioners assert their application meets the statutory requirements for judicial assistance 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a).

DISCUSSION

I. The Law 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) a court has the power to grant an application for judicial 

assistance when the following statutory factors have been met:

(1) the request must be made “by a foreign or international tribunal,” or by “any 

interested person”; (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 

evidence must be “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal”; 

and (4) the person from whom discovery is sought must reside or be found in the 

district of the district court ruling on the application for assistance. 

In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324, 1331–32 (11th Cir. 2007) (footnote omitted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 

1782(a)). When these elements are met, Section 1782 “authorizes, but does not require a federal 

district court to provide assistance.” Id. at 1332 (citing Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, 

Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 255 (2004)). Ultimately, “[w]hether, and to what extent, to honor a request for 

assistance pursuant to § 1782 has been committed by Congress to the sound discretion of the 

district court.” United Kingdom v. United States, 238 F.3d 1312, 1318–19 (11th Cir. 2001). 

In addition to the statutory factors listed above, the Supreme Court provided additional 

factors courts must consider in determining whether to grant an application brought under Section 

1782. Intel, 542 U.S. at 264–65. The Eleventh Circuit has summarized the Intel factors as follows: 

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

foreign proceeding,” because “the need for § 1782(a) aid generally is not as 

apparent as it ordinarily is when the evidence is sought from a nonparticipant”; (2) 

Case 1:22-mc-23619-RKA Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 3 of 7
4

“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 request is 

otherwise “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” The Supreme Court in Intel added 

that “unduly intrusive or burdensome requests may be rejected or trimmed.”

In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1334 (quoting Intel, 542 U.S. at 264–65). Once a court determines that a 

prima facie case has been established and the pertinent Intel factors are satisfied, the “court is 

therefore authorized to grant the application, [and] ‘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.” Application of Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS 

Forwarding (USA), Inc., 747 F.3d 1262, 1272 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Weber v. Finker, 554 F.3d 

1379, 1384–85 (11th Cir. 2009)).

II. Petitioners Satisfied Both the Statutory and Intel Factors 

Petitioners have satisfied the requirements for this Court to grant their Section 1782 

Application. They established the prima facie elements under the statute, and the discretionary 

Intel factors weigh in favor of granting the Application. First, Petitioners are “interested persons” 

for purposes of Section 1782. The statutory term “interested persons” encompasses parties and 

contemplated parties to a foreign litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1782; Intel, 542 U.S. at 256 

(explaining statutory text “interested person” plainly reaches beyond the universe of persons 

designated “litigant”). The declarations filed in support of the application show that Petitioners 

intend to sue Respondent’s Luxembourg affiliate and that notice was given to the affiliate of the 

potential claims. As a litigant or potential litigant, Petitioners meet the “interested person” 

requirement.

Case 1:22-mc-23619-RKA Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 4 of 7
5

Second, the application seeks “testimony or statement” of a person or the production of “a 

document or other thing.” Specifically, Petitioners intend to obtain documents from H.I.G. Capital 

LLC and testimony from two H.I.G. Capital LLC executives involved in the underlying 

transactions. The draft subpoenas specifically outline the documents and evidence sought by 

Petitioners from each nonparty witness. 

Third, Petitioners’ contemplated lawsuit satisfies the requirement of being for use in a 

proceeding before a foreign tribunal. The statute’s requirement of obtaining evidence “for use” in 

a foreign proceeding “does not limit the provision of judicial assistance to ‘pending’ adjudicative 

proceedings.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 258. And as counsel noted in his declaration, Petitioners’ claims 

arising out of the Fiduciary Agreement are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of 

Luxembourg.

Fourth, the person from whom discovery is sought resides or is found in the district of the 

district court ruling on the application for assistance. H.I.G. Capital LLC maintains its principal 

office in Miami, Florida, and Messrs. Mnaymneh and Tamer can be found in that office as well. 

In sum, Petitioners have established the prima facie elements under section 1782.

The Intel factors also weigh in favor of granting the Application. First, although H.I.G.

Capital is not a party to the Fiduciary Agreement—and will not be a party to the dispute in 

Luxembourg— it likely has control over the relevant evidence because of its affiliation to HIG47.

Thus, the need for § 1782(a) aid is apparent. Second, Plaintiffs’ foreign counsel declared 

Luxembourgian courts permit extraterritorial fact-finding prior to or during a lawsuit and would 

thus be receptive of this Court’s assistance. [ECF No. 5]. The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the 

grant of a petition in similar circumstances. See Application of Furstenberg Fin. SAS v. Litai Assets 

LLC, 877 F.3d 1031 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding shareholders produced reliable indications that 

Case 1:22-mc-23619-RKA Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 5 of 7
6 

proceedings would be instituted in Luxembourg within reasonable time). Third, there is no 

indication that the Application circumvents Luxembourg’s laws. Counsel has declared the 

information is not protected by legal privilege, and although some information might be 

confidential, Dailane Investments is a minority shareholder and Mr. Maillis is a member of the 

Maillis Group Board of Directors. [ECF No. 5 ¶ 7]. Lastly, having reviewed the proposed 

subpoenas, the Court finds they are neither unduly intrusive nor overly burdensome. See generally 

[ECF No. 7]. For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion in favor of granting the 

application. 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Application [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED. 

2. Dailane Investments Limited and Michael Maillis are authorized to issue and serve the 

subpoenas on H.I.G. Capital LLC and its officers, Sami Mnaymneh and Anthony Tamer. 

Petitioners are also authorized to serve additional follow-up subpoenas as may be necessary 

to obtain the testimonial or documentary evidence described in the Application. 

3. H.I.G. Capital LLC, Sami Mnaymneh, and Anthony Tamer are ordered to preserve all 

relevant and potentially relevant evidence in their possession, custody, or control until 

further Order from this Court. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 29th day of March 2023. 

 

 LISETTE M. REID

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-mc-23619-RKA Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 6 of 7
7

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-mc-23619-RKA Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023 Page 7 of 7