Finally, the discovery requested from Grandpoint Bank and City National Bank is not unduly burdensome, as it merely seeks account information related to Megawine, the type of discovery requests banks deal with on a regular basis. See In re Application of Roebers, 2012 WL 2862122, *3 (N.D. Case 2:13-cv-08211-JAK-JCG Document 10 Filed 11/27/13 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:412 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED PETITION FOR AN ORDER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) 1483361.22 -22- 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 Cal.

. Case3:11-mc-80171-CRB Document23 Filed08/05/11 Page23 of 24 19 JOINT MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION THE ROE‟S 28 U.S.C. § 1782 APPLICATIONS CASE NOS. 11-mc-80171-CRB, 11-mc-80172-CRB 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 29 30 31 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ROE‟s broad discovery request—which it should not—Chevron reserves the right to apply for a reciprocal exchange of information between the ROE and Chevron. IV.

See Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65. C. High Point’s Requests Improper ly Seek To Give Extrater r itor ial Effect to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Section 1782 was never intended to have extraterritorial effect.

See, e.g., Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 84-85 (2d Cir. 2004) (denying Section 1782 Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document599 Filed01/05/10 Page7 of 34 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 SVI-76256v1 - 4 - DEFS’ OPP. TO ORACLE’S MOT. TO MODIFY AND COMPEL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) request because

Evidence That is Irrelevant to the Foreign Proceeding Will Not Be “Useful” to It, in Violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 The expansiveness of Escolástica’s requests renders its § 1782 application further defective because it prevents Escolástica from meeting the statutory “for use” requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Escolástica has not at this point shown, as it must, that “the evidence [requested] will provide it some advantage in the foreign proceeding or be useful in the proceeding.”

However, Chevron has chosen in this instance to seek discovery (1) from one of the Republic’s own counsel (2) on matters that have no relevance to the UNCITRAL arbitration. WHEREFORE, the Republic respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order: denying in relevant part Chevron’s request for subpoenas issued pursuant to Chevron’s Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 To Conduct Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings, enjoining Chevron from pursuing such discovery, and granting any other relief this Court deems appropriate. Dated: June 23, 2010 Respectfully submitted, C. MacNeil Mitchell WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Phone: (212) 294-6700 Fax: (212) 294-4700 E-mail: cmitchel@winston.com /s/ Eric W. Bloom Eric W. Bloom (Bar No. 417819) Lauren M. Butcher (Bar No. 494748) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1700 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 282-5000 Fax: (202) 282-5100 E-mail: ebloom@winston.com Attorneys for the Republic of Ecuador Case 1:10-mc-00371-CKK -DAR Document 19 Filed 06/23/10 Page 22 of 23 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 23, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e- mail addresses: Thomas F. Cullen

Potential and Non-Exclusive Privilege Categories Patton Boggs objects to this Request to the extent it calls for the production of documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or both, or are confidential. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, based on a preliminary review of Patton Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 579 Filed 09/07/12 Page 171 of 190 168 Boggs’ documents that may be responsive to this Request and Patton Boggs’ understanding of documents that may be in its possession, as drafted, Patton Boggs submits that this Request may call for the production of the following categories of material that is or may be protected from disclosure: • memoranda and communications analyzing Chevron’s allegations in various 28 U.S.C. § 1782 proceedings regarding historic payments to Richard Cabrera (alleged to have been made before Patton Boggs was counsel of record). These documents may be protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal protections.

Although the Court need not reach this issue, the location of these documents provides an independent basis for denying Qualcomm’s request, because documents not found in the United States are beyond the reach of § 1782. See, e.g., Four Pillars Enters Co., Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) (acknowledging support for the view that § 1782 was not intended to support discovery of material located outside the United States); In re Judicial Assistance Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 by Macquarie Bank Ltd., 2015 WL 3439103, at *10 (“[t]he legislative history to § 1782 indicates that it was intended to aid in obtaining oral and documentary evidence in the United States and some of its drafters have expressed policy concerns with applying it more broadly, which together have given courts reason to think that Congress intended to reach only evidence located within the United States.”) (quotation marks omitted); Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Chubb Ins. Co. of Canada, 384 F. Supp. 2d 45, 57 (D.D.C. 2005) (concluding that the location of the documents outside of the United States strongly “militate[s] against ordering that the requested documents . . . be produced”).

408.8910 (f) ksperduto@sperdutothompson.com Counsel for Rinat Akhmetshin Case 1:14-mc-00340-GK Document 10 Filed 05/15/14 Page 22 of 23 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 15th day of May, 2014, that I caused copies of Rinat Akhmetshin’s Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To Applicant’s Request For 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Discovery, along with copies of the Affidavit Of Rinat Akhmetshin, Declaration Of Patrick Salisbury, and Declaration of Professor Dr. Marielle Koppenol-Laforce, to be served using the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System pursuant to Local Rule 5.4, on counsel for Applicant, S. Nathan Park, KOBRE & KIM LLP, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, Nathan.park@kobrekim.com.

See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264-65 (2004); Marubeni America Corp. v. LBA Y.K., 335 Fed. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2009). For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the Pell Declaration, the Tsirides Declaration and the Memorandum of Law in Support of this Application, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court enter an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, granting them leave to conduct the requested discovery in a form similar to the proposed subpoenas attached hereto as Exhibits 6-9 to the Pell Declaration. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant the Application.