HateAid gGmbH, 4:23-mc-80235

HateAid gGmbH and others filed a civil lawsuit in Berlin, Germany against Twitter International Unlimited Company (TIUC), alleging TIUC failed to remove anti-Semitic and hateful posts in violation of its own policies and German law.
Applicants identified six specific posts from 2022-2023 that were not removed after being reported to TIUC.
TIUC responded in the German litigation that it had restricted access to these posts promptly.
Applicants sought permission from the U.S. District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to subpoena X Corp. (Twitter’s U.S.-based parent) for documents and a deposition about TIUC’s responses to the reported content.
The Berlin court dismissed the Applicants’ case for lack of jurisdiction, stating the proper forum is Ireland, where TIUC is incorporated.
Despite the dismissal, Applicants sought § 1782 discovery from the U.S. court, citing potential appellate proceedings and/or future suits in the proper forum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should § 1782 discovery be authorized while the German case is dismissed?	Plaintiffs argued discovery is needed for a potential appeal and future proceedings.	TIUC argued discovery is irrelevant as the German court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.	Court denied discovery; no persuasive explanation given for relevance to the appeal.
Relevance and use of discovery in potential new forum (Ireland)	Plaintiffs implied discovery could be useful for future action in the correct forum.	TIUC argued analysis under § 1782 must consider the law of the actual jurisdiction.	Court noted § 1782 analysis must consider the policies of the new forum; current request denied.
Whether vague possibilities of future need justify granting discovery now	Plaintiffs suggested new evidence may be useful at the appellate level.	TIUC argued that such vague prospects are insufficient to justify discovery.	Court found plaintiffs’ rationale speculative and not persuasive.
Possibility of reapplication under § 1782 for future cases	Plaintiffs asked for opportunity to seek discovery again if circumstances change.	TIUC did not oppose opportunity to refile if requirements are met.	Application denied without prejudice—future reapplication permitted if proper.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (sets the standard and discretionary factors for granting § 1782 applications)
Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP, 376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (outlines purposes of § 1782—international judicial assistance and reciprocity)
In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist. Prosecutor’s Office, Tokyo, Japan, 16 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 1994) (§ 1782 discovery must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)