1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Houssam Hachem, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Party, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. MC-17-00057-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff Houssam Hachem's renewed application for an order 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 granting leave to obtain discovery for use in a Canadian 

proceeding. (Docs. 1, 4.) The Canadian litigation is an action by Plaintiff against 

presently unknown Defendants based on an anonymous and allegedly defamatory posting 

published at www.thedirty.com ("Website"). (Docs. 1-1, 1-2 at 4.) Plaintiff contends 

that his only reasonable means to discover Defendants' identities is to subpoena the 

information from Dirty World, LLC, which operates the Website. 

 Upon application by any interested person, 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) allows a district 

court to order a person residing or who may be found within its district to produce 

documents or give testimony for use in a foreign proceeding. 

There are thus three threshold requirements for compelling discovery under § 1782: (1) the person from whom discovery is sought must "reside" or be "found" in the district; (2) the 

discovery must be for use in a proceeding in a foreign 

tribunal; and (3) the applicant must be an "interested person." 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

In re Godfrey, 526 F. Supp. 2d 417, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 

 As the plaintiff in the Canadian litigation, Plaintiff is an interested person within 

the meaning of the statute, and he seeks discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. The 

Court previously denied Plaintiff's request, however, because he had not adequately 

shown that Dirty World resides or is found in the District of Arizona. (Doc. 3.) In his 

renewed application, Plaintiff provides this missing information. Specifically, he 

attaches e-mail correspondence with counsel for Dirty World confirming its presence in 

Arizona. (Doc. 4-1.) Based on this supplemental information, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff meets the threshold requirements of § 1782(a). 

 When the threshold requirements of § 1782(a) are met, "[t]he statute authorizes, 

but does not require," the district court to compel the requested discovery. Intel Corp. v. 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 255 (2004). In exercising its discretion to 

grant or deny a request under § 1782, the court considers several factors, including: (1) 

whether the "person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign 

proceeding;" (2) the nature and character of the foreign proceeding, and whether the 

foreign court is receptive to judicial assistance from the United States; (3) whether the 

request is an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions; and (4) whether 

the discovery request is "unduly intrusive or burdensome." Id. at 264-66. The court may 

also consider whether the requested materials are located outside the United States. See 

Four Pillars Enter. Co., Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 

2002). In weighing these factors, the court must be mindful of "the twin aims of the 

statute: providing efficient means of assistance to participants in international litigation 

in our federal courts and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide similar 

means of assistant to our courts." In re Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 77, 79 (2d Cir. 

1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 

 Plaintiff seeks to subpoena seven categories of documents related to the allegedly 

defamatory web posting. (Doc. 1-3 at 6.) These documents do not appear unduly 

intrusive or burdensome, and are targeted at uncovering the identities of those responsible 
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

for the posting so that they may be named as defendants in the Canadian litigation. Dirty 

World is not a party to the Canadian litigation, and there is no indication that the 

Canadian court would be unreceptive to judicial assistance from the United States or that 

Plaintiff's application is an attempt to circumvent Canadian proof-gathering restrictions. 

For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's renewed Application Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1782 (Docs. 1, 4) is GRANTED. 

 Dated this 7th day of November, 2017. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge