Anna Aleksandrovna Sergeeva v. Tripleton International Limited
834 F.3d 1194
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ex-wife (Anna Sergeeva) sought discovery in the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to support ongoing Russian divorce/asset‑division litigation; she subpoenaed Trident Corporate Services, Inc. (Trident Atlanta) and its employee, Gabriella Pugh.
- The subpoena sought documents referencing Bahamian entities (Tripleton International Ltd., Trident Bahamas, Guardian Bahamas) and requested materials in the possession, custody, or control of Trident Atlanta, including documents held by affiliated Trident Group entities abroad.
- Magistrate Judge granted an ex parte § 1782 application and ordered production; Trident Atlanta moved to quash and for reconsideration, which the magistrate and district court denied.
- Trident Atlanta produced only limited Atlanta documents and appealed; the district court warned that failure to disclose control efforts would invite sanctions.
- While the appeal was pending, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, found Trident Atlanta in contempt for non‑production and bad faith discovery avoidance, awarded compensatory fees and imposed coercive daily fines; district court judgment for compensatory sanctions was entered.
- The Eleventh Circuit consolidated Trident Atlanta’s two appeals (order granting § 1782 discovery and contempt/sanctions) and affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1782 authorizes discovery of documents located abroad | Ex‑wife: § 1782 incorporates the Federal Rules and Rule 45 allows extraterritorial production; location of documents is not a per se bar | Trident: § 1782 should not reach documents located in foreign jurisdictions; extraterritorial discovery is barred | Court: § 1782 authorizes discovery under Federal Rules; location alone does not bar production (subject to control requirement) |
| Whether a subpoena may compel production of documents in possession of affiliated foreign entities (control) | Ex‑wife: Trident Atlanta has practical/legal ability to obtain documents from Trident Group affiliates; prior inter‑company information sharing supports control | Trident: It lacks legal control/rights to compel affiliated foreign entities to produce documents | Court: Adopted broad Searock standard—control = legal right or practical ability to obtain; circumstantial evidence showed Trident Atlanta had control; findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether district court erred in sanctioning/contempt while an appeal was pending | Ex‑wife: District court retained jurisdiction to enforce its orders absent a stay; contempt proceedings appropriate | Trident: Appeal divested district court of jurisdiction; orders unlawful | Court: Appeal did not divest enforcement jurisdiction absent a stay; contempt and sanctions supported by record; affirmed |
| Whether district court abused discretion or made clearly erroneous factual findings | Ex‑wife: Record (Pugh correspondence, deposition, group practices) supports findings of control and bad faith | Trident: Factual record insufficient; court applied wrong legal standard | Court: Applied correct standards; factual findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (§ 1782 discretionary framework and Intel factors)
- Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 747 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (prima facie requirements for § 1782 and review standards)
- In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (interpretation of § 1782 and standards of review)
- F.T.C. v. Leshin, 719 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for civil contempt and sanctions)
- SeaRock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1984) (broad construction of "control" for discovery purposes)
- Weber v. Finker, 554 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 2009) (district courts acting within discretion when ordering discovery under § 1782)
- Glock v. Glock, Inc., 797 F.3d 1002 (11th Cir. 2015) (rejecting limits on § 1782 unsupported by statutory text)
- Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1975) (district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders during appeal absent a stay)