11 Cited authorities

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
542 U.S. 241 (2004) Cited 1,172 times 108 Legal Analyses
Holding that discovery is available for use in proceedings "within reasonable contemplation"
In re Application of Sarrio
119 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 86 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "standing to oppose subpoenas issued under § 1782 is [not] limited to the subpoenaed witness parties against whom the requested information will be used may have standing to challenge the lawfulness of discovery orders directed to third parties"
In re Godfrey
526 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 42 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that § 1782 should be limited to discovery within the United States
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada
384 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2005) Cited 31 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court cannot require a wholly-owned American subsidiary to force its foreign parent corporation to submit to discovery
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
292 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 34 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding nothing in the language or legislative history of Section 1782 to require a threshold showing on the party seeking discovery that what is sought is discoverable.
Kestrel Coal Pty. Ltd. v. Joy Global, Inc.
362 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 2004) Cited 31 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that discovery "must conform either to the procedure of the foreign nation or to that of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"
Hickory Travel Systems, Inc. v. Tui Ag
213 F.R.D. 547 (N.D. Cal. 2003) Cited 29 times
Holding that service on a subsidiary will constitute service on a parent only if the the plaintiff demonstrates "either that the subsidiary functions as the parent's agent or as its alter ego"
In re Application of Nokia Corporation
Case No. 1:07-MC-47 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 13, 2007) Cited 5 times
Rejecting argument that entity was found in district for purposes of section 1782 because of contacts of its subsidiary
In re Application of Marano for Order to Take Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782
No. CV-09-80020-MISC-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2009)
No. CV-09-80020-MISC-DLJ. February 25, 2009 ORDER D. JENSEN, Senior District Judge On February 12, 2009, Peter Damien Marano ("Marano") filed an application to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. On February 20, 2009, Frances F. Bowes ("Bowes") filed a letter brief in opposition. Having considered the papers submitted and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES the application. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background and Procedural History Marano is a party in a divorce proceeding in London
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,729 times 105 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"
Section 1782 - Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals
28 U.S.C. § 1782 Cited 2,114 times 247 Legal Analyses
In § 1782, Congress has expressly authorized federal courts to order discovery from domestic persons in aid of foreign proceedings like the ongoing Polish prosecution.

High Point, S.A.R.L. v. Future Wei Technologies, Inc., et al.

11 Cited authorities

Holding that discovery is available for use in proceedings "within reasonable contemplation"

Holding that "standing to oppose subpoenas issued under § 1782 is [not] limited to the subpoenaed witness parties against whom the requested information will be used may have standing to challenge the lawfulness of discovery orders directed to third parties"

Concluding that § 1782 should be limited to discovery within the United States

Holding that the court cannot require a wholly-owned American subsidiary to force its foreign parent corporation to submit to discovery

Finding nothing in the language or legislative history of Section 1782 to require a threshold showing on the party seeking discovery that what is sought is discoverable.

Holding that discovery "must conform either to the procedure of the foreign nation or to that of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"

Holding that service on a subsidiary will constitute service on a parent only if the the plaintiff demonstrates "either that the subsidiary functions as the parent's agent or as its alter ego"

Rejecting argument that entity was found in district for purposes of section 1782 because of contacts of its subsidiary

Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

In § 1782, Congress has expressly authorized federal courts to order discovery from domestic persons in aid of foreign proceedings like the ongoing Polish prosecution.