Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/46327925/Beluga-v-Suzlon-09-23-10
Timestamp: 2014-10-01 08:34:46
Document Index: 99600065

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', '§ 1782', 'art-04']

Beluga v Suzlon 09-23-10
P. 1Beluga v Suzlon 09-23-10Beluga v Suzlon 09-23-10Ratings: (0)|Views: 358
|Likes: 1Published by Legal WriterMore info:Published by: Legal Writer on Jan 05, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46327925/Beluga-v-Suzlon-09-23-1012/25/2012pdftextoriginal 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONIN RE BELUGA SHIPPING GMBH &CO. KS “BELUGA FANTASTIC” V.SUZLON ENERGY LTD., FEDERALCOURT PROCEEDINGS, NSD 1670 OF2008 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT,NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA___________________________________))))))))))Misc. Case No. C 10-80034 JW (PVT)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART ANDDENYING IN PART SUZLON’SPETITION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCTDISCOVERY; ORDER GRANTINGNON-PARTY GOOGLE, INC.’SMOTION TO INTERVENE[Docket No. 19]INTRODUCTION
Suzlon Energy, Ltd., Suzlon Energy Australia PTY Ltd., Suzlon Infrastructure Limited,Suzlon Wind Energy Corporation, USA, Suzlon Structures PTE, Ltd., and SE Shipping PTE Ltd.petition for leave to conduct discovery in aid of foreign judicial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782. (collectively “Suzlon”). Non-party Google, Inc. moves to intervene, and opposes the petition.(“Google”). The parties appeared for a hearing on May 18, 2010. Having reviewed the papers andconsidered the arguments of counsel,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Suzlon’s petition is granted in part and denied in
In Re Beluga Shipping Gmbh & Co. KD &quot;Beluga Fant...e Federal Court, New Sourth Wales, AustraliaDoc. 31Dockets.Justia.com
The holding of this court is limited to the particular facts and particular circumstancesunderlying the present motion.
In the reply, Suzlon withdrew without prejudice its request to depose Google. Reply at5.O
part without prejudice to a renewed motion upon proper showing.
Suzlon designs and manufactures wind turbines and is the third largest wind turbinemanufacturer in the world. In an action proceeding in the Federal Court in New South Wales,Australia, Suzlon represents that its former employees, Rajagpalan Sridhar (Chief ManufacturingOfficer) and Sanjeev Bangad (General Manager, Logistics), have been named as cross-defendantsand allegations against them include claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. (collectively“individual cross-defendants”). Specifically, Suzlon alleges that individual cross-defendants Sridharand Bangad misrepresented to the company whether Suzlon could procure sufficient ships totransport Suzlon’s cargo, and instead themselves, formed and incorporated several companies tofinancially benefit from transporting Suzlon’s cargo. Individual cross-defendants Sridhar andBangad further misrepresented to the company that they were not associated with any of thecompanies contracted to ship Suzlon’s cargo, and that they did not financially benefit fromcontracting with these companies to ship Suzlon’s cargo.Suzlon petitions to subpoena the contents of certain electronic mail accounts hosted by non-party Google. Suzlon believes that those email accounts were used by the individual cross-defendants to facilitate their egregious conduct. Suzlon also petitions to depose a representativefrom Google to authenticate the emails from those email accounts and for a preservation order.
Because Google’s headquarters is located in Mountain View, California and in this district, Suzlonpetitions this court for leave to take discovery.On February 12, 2010, the court issued an order denying without prejudice Suzlon’s petitionfor leave to conduct discovery in aid of foreign judicial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.Suzlon was instructed to serve the individual cross-defendants Sridhar and Bangad, who werebelieved to reside in Australia. Order Denying without Prejudice Suzlon’s Petition for Leave to
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728O
Take Discovery in Aid of Foreign Judicial Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 dated February12, 2010. (“February 12, 2010 Order”). (Docket No. 8).On February 24, 2010, Suzlon informed the court that cross-defendants Sridhar and Bangadwere located and imprisoned in India.
Docket No. 9. On March 1, 2010, the court orderedSuzlon to serve them there. Order Regarding Suzlon’s Amended Order for Leave to ConductDiscovery in Aid of Foreign Judicial Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 filed on March 1,2010. (“March 1, 2010 Order”). (Docket No. 10). On March 3, 2010, Suzlon served the individualcross-defendants Bangad and Sridhar pursuant to Hague Convention protocols. Although the courtlater received a letter from individual cross-defendant Bangad’s brother, which indicated thatBangad has received notice of the service, no official confirmation from the Indian CentralAuthority has been received for either cross defendant.
Docket No. 18. Moreover, Suzlon hasnot confirmed service on the individual cross-defendants.In the subpoenas, Suzlon petitions for the following information:1. All emails sent, received, and/or drafted whether or not they are relevant to theAustralian proceedings, from the following email addresses:Ybangad@gmail.com;sanjeevbangad@gmail.com; rsridhar1998@gmail.com; g01p36b@gmail.com. 2. Ability to depose a representative from Google regarding:A. When each of the Gmail accounts at issue was created;B.The name provided to Google by the user of each account during the accountcreation process;C. The country in which each account was created;D. How Google stores or saves emails in Gmail accounts;E.How information regarding when emails sent to and from a Gmail account isrecorded and stored.
28 U.S.C. § 1782 provides the mechanism for foreign tribunals or interested persons torequest assistance from a district court to conduct discovery for use in foreign proceedings.It states in pertinent part:(a) The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order himto give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use ina proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads1 thousand readsMehta Praful Chandrakant liked thisLoad more
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection StockwellVCreditManagement - Oct2013
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Dash v. Mayweather - Notice of Appeal
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Dash v. Mayweather - Motion to Reconsider
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Bitcoin -- Legal and Business Issues Surrounding the Digi...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection StutzmanVArmstrong - Anti-SLAPP Opinion.pdf
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Beckett Ventures v. Eagle Ford Order
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection United States v Kane - Oct. 2012 Magistrate Report
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Netflix8-K-SocialMedia-04102013.pdf
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Parker v. Franklin Consent Decree
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Franchise v Google Complaint April 2012
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection UMG v Shelter Edited
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Fodor-v-Does-04-27-2011
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Rock v Universal 04-27-2011
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Stebbins-v-Wal-Mart-04-11-2011
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Right Haven v Sumner
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Righthaven-v-Pahrump-04-28-2011
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection In-re-Merrill-Lynch-12-07-2010
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection In Re Merrill Lynch 02-09-2011
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Viacom-v-YouTube-06-23-10
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Mortensen-v-Bresnan-12-13-10
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Helix-v-Helix-09-30-10
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Blake v Murphy 09 14 10
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Simmons-v-Danhauer-10-21-10