Opinion
2:22-mc-192-DSF-MAA
11-16-2022
In re Ex Parte Application of SHEIKH WALID BIN IBRAHIM AL IBRAHIM for an Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Obtain Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, Applicant.
ORDER ADOPTING THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ON THE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN PROCEEDING
HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Upon consideration of the Petition for Discovery in Aid of a Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (the “Petition,” ECF No. 1), submitted by Petitioner Sheikh Walid bin Ibrahim al Ibrahim, all papers submitted in support thereof, and the U.S. Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued on October 31, 2022 (ECF No. 13), this Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Petition is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the U.S. Magistrate Judge's R&R;
ORDERED that Petitioner is hereby authorized to serve the Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition for Use in a Foreign Proceeding and the Subpoena to Produce Documents for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, to the Applicant's Response to the U.S. Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, upon John David Britt;
ORDERED that John David Britt comply with such Subpoenas in accordance with and subject to his rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court;
ORDERED that Mr. Britt shall have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of service of the Subpoenas to file any motions in this Court to contest them, which date may be extended by agreement of the parties or order of the Court. To allow for such motions, the return date on the Subpoenas must be set at least thirty-one (31) days after the date of service. Mr. Britt's obligation to respond to the Subpoenas is automatically stayed upon his filing of any motion contesting the Subpoenas and such stay shall remain in effect until such motions are resolved; and it is further
ORDERED that with respect with the discovery denied here, such denial is without prejudice to a subsequent application should the circumstances change in the relevant legal proceedings against Applicant and his brother in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.