Abubakar v. Chicago State University, 1:23-cv-05099

Background

Atiku Abubakar, a 2023 Nigerian presidential candidate, alleges President Bola Tinubu submitted a forged Chicago State University (CSU) diploma to Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and challenged the election in Nigeria; Abubakar intends to appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria after the Court of Appeal ruled against him.
Abubakar filed a § 1782 application in the Northern District of Illinois seeking narrow, expedited discovery from CSU (copies of exemplar diplomas, Tinubu’s diploma, similar-format diplomas, and certain certified "Orr" documents) and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on limited topics.
Tinubu intervened; CSU opposed parts of the subpoenas (especially broad ESI/communications) and sought to limit depositions to written questions; parties submitted briefs and the Court held a hearing.
The magistrate applied the two-step Intel framework: (1) statutory § 1782 thresholds (respondent found in district, discovery “for use” in foreign proceeding, applicant an “interested person”) and (2) discretionary Intel factors (participant status, receptivity of foreign tribunal, circumvention concerns, and burden/intrusiveness).
Court found the § 1782 thresholds satisfied (discovery “for use” in Abubakar’s anticipated Supreme Court appeal; Abubakar an interested party) and concluded discretionary factors on balance favored discovery, with limits to avoid undue burden.
Ordered CSU to produce responsive, non-privileged documents to Requests 1–3 within 48 hours; denied expedited, broad ESI/communications production as unduly burdensome; overruled CSU’s objection to an oral Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on narrowed topics to occur shortly after document production.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1782 discovery is “for use” in a foreign proceeding	Abubakar: evidence will be used in his Supreme Court of Nigeria appeal; foreign admissibility not required	Tinubu: diploma issues were not in the initial petition; Court of Appeal declined to consider them	Granted — "for use" satisfied; §1782 does not require foreign admissibility and practical ability to inject evidence is enough
Whether Abubakar is an “interested person” under § 1782	Abubakar: party to Nigerian proceedings and will appeal; seeks evidence for that appeal	Tinubu: issues arose late and in other proceedings; so Abubakar is not the proper interested party	Granted — Abubakar is an interested person because he is a party and intends to present evidence on appeal
Whether the Nigerian courts would be receptive (Intel factor 2)	Abubakar: Supreme Court of Nigeria may consider new evidence in exceptional circumstances; receptivity uncertain but not dispositive	Tinubu: Court of Appeal rejected the evidence; alleges Supreme Court would be unreceptive	Neutral/for applicant — no authoritative proof Supreme Court would bar evidence; factor does not weigh against discovery
Whether discovery is unduly intrusive or burdensome (Intel factor 4) and appropriate procedure for deposition	Abubakar: narrowed requests and limited 30(b)(6) topics tailored to imminent appeal; oral deposition efficient	CSU/Tinubu: privacy (FERPA) concerns and burden of ESI searches; prefer written-question depositions	For applicant with limits — FERPA privacy outweighed because diploma put at issue; court ordered production of Requests 1–3, denied broad expedited ESI searches, and allowed oral Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on narrowed topics

Key Cases Cited

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (establishes § 1782 statutory thresholds and the four discretionary Intel factors)
Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2012) (district courts should not evaluate foreign admissibility when assessing “for use”)
In re Accent Delight Int'l Ltd., 869 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2017) ("for use" requires practical ability to inject evidence into foreign proceeding)
Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 633 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011) (guidance on weighing Intel factors and burden-shifting in Seventh Circuit)
In re Schlich, 893 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2018) (rejects rigid burden-shifting; treats Intel factors as guideposts)
Department of Caldas v. Diageo PLC, 925 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2019) (declines strict burden-shifting and endorses flexible approach to Intel factors)
Kestrel Coal PTY Ltd. v. Joy Global, Inc., 362 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 2004) (discusses limits of § 1782 when foreign tribunal has already addressed discovery needs)
In re Labor Court of Brazil, 466 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not require that foreign admissibility be considered)
John Deere Ltd. v. Sperry Corp., 754 F.2d 132 (3d Cir. 1985) (cautions against district courts predicting foreign procedural rules)
Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (statute should not force speculative forays into foreign law)