FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 4, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10310 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -025 34 -C V -T W T -1 E L I Z A B E T H K A N G , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s N O R O - M O S E L E Y P A R T N E R S , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 4, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E li za b eth K an g ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s g ra n t o f N o ro -M o se ley P ar tn er s’s2

m o tio n to q u a s h s u b p o e n a . K a n g s o u g h t d is c o v e ry f r o m N o r o - M o s e le y P a r tn e r s to us e i n a c i vi l pr oc e e di ng i n G e r m a ny pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1782. W e r e vi e w the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n f o ra n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . I

n r e C le r ic i, 481 F . 3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . O urr e vi e w i s e xtr e m e l y de f e r e nt i a l a nd i de nt i c a l t o the s ta n d a r d f

o rr e v ie w in g o r d in a ry d is c o v e ry ru lin g s b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I d . H ow e ve rt o the e xt e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on i s ba s e d on a n i nt e rpr e t a t i on o f l aw o u r rev i ew i s de no vo . I d. S e c tio n 1 7 8 2 “a u th o r iz e s , b u t d o e s n o t r e q u ir e , a f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t to prov i de as si st ance t o a com pl ai nant. . . ” In tel C o rp . v. A dva n ced

Mi cro D evi ces, I nc . , 54 2 U . S . 24 1, 25 5, 12 4 S . C t . 24 66 , 24 78 , 15 9 L . E d. 2d . 35 5 (20 04 ). U nd er § 1 78 2(a) , the di stri ctcourtca n g ra ntan appl i ca t i on for j ud i ci al as si st ance w hen th e fo l l o w i n g st atu t o ry req u i rem en t s are m et : (1 ) th e req u estm u stb e m ad e “ b y a fo rei g n o r i n t ern at i o n al tri b u n al , ” o r b y “ an y i n t erest ed p erso n ”; (2 ) th e req u est m us ts e e k e vi de nc e , w he the ri tbe the “ t e s t i m ony ors t a t e m e nt ” of a pe r s on orthe pr oduc t i on of

“ a doc um e ntorothe rthi ng” ; ( 3) the e vi de nc e m us tbe “ f orus e i n a pr oc e e di ng i n a f

or e i gn ori nt e rna t i ona l tr i buna l ” ; a nd ( 4) the pe r s on f r om w hom di sc ov ery i s s ou gh tm ustre si de or be foun d i n the di stri ctof the di stri ctcourt ru l i n g o n th e ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s s i s t a n c e . 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 7 8 2 ( a ) . O n c e th e s e p r i ma f a c i e r e qui r e m e nt s a r e s a t i s f i e d, the f ol l ow i ng f

a c t or s m us tbe c ons i de r e d by the3

di s tr i c tc our ti n e xe r c i s i ng i t s di s c r e t i on: ( 1) w he the r“ the pe r s on f r om w hom di sc ov ery i s s ou gh ti s apart i ci panti n the fore i gn proceedi ng , ” bec ause “ the need f o r§ 1 7 8 2 ( a ) a id g e n e r a lly is n o t a s ap p a r e n t a s it o r d in a r ily is w h e n e v id e n c e is soug htfr om a non part i ci pant ”; (2) “ the nature of the forei gn tri bu nal , the chara ct er of the pr oc e e di ngs unde rw a y a br oa d, a nd the r e c e pt i vi ty of the f or e i gn gove rnm e nt orthe c our tora ge nc y abr oa d t o U . S . f e de r a l - c our tj udi c i a l a s s i s t a nc e ” ; ( 3)

“ w he the rthe § 1782( a ) r e que s tc onc e a l s a n a tt e m ptt o c i r c um ve ntf or e i gn proo f- gatheri ng re stri ct i on s or other pol i ci es of a f orei gn coun try or the U ni t ed S t a t e s ” ; a nd ( 4) w he the rthe r e que s ti s othe rw i s e “ undul y i ntrus i ve or bu rdensom e. ” Int el , 542 U . S . a t264- 65, 124 S . C t . a t2483. H e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly f o u n d th a t a p r im a f

a c ie c a s e h a d b e e n m e t. Itthen con si dere d the four Int el f a c to r s f in d in g th a t th e f

ir s t f a c to rw e ig h e d in f a vorof de ny i ng the m ot i on t o qua s h. H ow e ve r , the c our tf ound tha tthi s f

a c t or w a s outw e i ghe d by the i rr e l e va nc e of the r e que s t e d di s c ove ry t o the na tur e of the f or e i gn pr oc e e di ngs . A di s tr i c tc our tc a n de ny di s c ove ry w he r e the i nf or m a t i on s o u g h t is irr e le v a n t to th e c a u s e s o f a c tio n . See B urger Ki ngC orp. v. W eave r , 169 F . 3d 13 10 , 13 20 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ). G i ven t hatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on si dere d the I n te l fa ct ors i n d ec i di ng w hether t o exerci se i t s di sc re t i on and h as no tabused h is d is c r e tio n in d e te r m in in g r e le v a n c e , w e c a n f in d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . AF F I RME D.