APPLICATION OF SEMRUSH SM LLC, FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1782 TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS, 28 U.S.C. 1782

Semrush SM LLC (Russian LLC, subsidiary of a Delaware parent) alleges employee Pavel Frolov misappropriated confidential Semrush information and was terminated for cause after sending confidential data to his personal email.
Frolov sued Semrush in the Oktyabrsky District Court of St. Petersburg, Russia, claiming wrongful termination.
Semrush discovered Frolov also worked for HypeAuditor (assumed name of Indiana LLC Stonecast Financial LLC, based in Indianapolis) during his Semrush employment and seeks HypeAuditor records (consulting agreement, other agreements, payment records) as evidence in the Russian litigation.
Semrush filed an ex parte, sealed application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to subpoena HypeAuditor in the Southern District of Indiana.
The Magistrate Judge granted Semrush leave to proceed ex parte, ordered the case to be unsealed after final resolution (unless a sealing motion is filed), and recommended that the District Court grant the § 1782 application; subpoenas remain subject to a potential quash or modification motion by HypeAuditor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1782's statutory requirements are met	Semrush is an "interested person," seeks documents for use in pending Russian litigation, and HypeAuditor is located in this district	No opposition presented yet; respondent may challenge after service	Magistrate: Threshold requirements satisfied; court has authority under § 1782
Whether discretionary Intel factors favor discovery	HypeAuditor is a non‑party outside Russian court's reach; Russian courts are receptive; request not an attempt to evade foreign restrictions; requests narrow	No opposition presented; respondent could later argue burden or intrusiveness	Magistrate: Intel factors weigh in favor; discretionary grant appropriate
Whether ex parte filing and sealing were appropriate	Ex parte review permitted for § 1782 requests; sealing temporarily appropriate but case should be unsealed absent a later sealing motion	No opposition presented	Court: Granted leave to proceed ex parte and ordered unsealing after final resolution unless a sealing motion is filed
Scope of subpoena and opportunity to challenge	Seeks consulting agreement, other agreements/terms, and payment records relating to Frolov	Respondent may move to quash or modify subpoenas when served	Magistrate: Recommended grant of application but allowed HypeAuditor to move to quash or modify subpoenas

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (establishes § 1782 threshold and discretionary factors analysis)
Gushlak v. Gushlak, [citation="486 F. App'x 215"] (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses ex parte practice under § 1782 and respondents' post‑service remedies)
In re Application of Masters, 315 F. Supp. 3d 269 (D.D.C. 2018) (addresses ex parte § 1782 procedures and courts' handling of sealing requests)