3:23-mc-00841
D. Or.Jan 3, 2024Background
- Luis Aron, the petitioner, is involved in multiple legal disputes in Paraguay concerning the control and finances of Doral, the exclusive Adidas licensee in Paraguay.
- Aron alleges that the Gomez Family has wrongfully controlled Doral and filed false criminal charges against him, resulting in significant legal challenges in Paraguay.
- Aron seeks discovery from Adidas America, Inc., a company based in Oregon, to obtain documents and testimony relevant to the Paraguayan proceedings.
- The discovery is sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allows U.S. district courts to provide assistance to foreign tribunals by permitting discovery from persons within the U.S.
- The application was brought ex parte to the District of Oregon, as Adidas America, Inc. is not subject to Paraguayan court jurisdiction and is not a party to the foreign proceedings.
- The court evaluated the application under the Intel factors and determined that the request met both statutory and discretionary requirements for § 1782 assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner should be allowed to serve a subpoena on Adidas America, Inc. under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 | Aron asserts he is an interested party, the information sought is relevant to ongoing foreign litigation, and Adidas America, Inc. is found in the district | No argument by Adidas; proceeding is ex parte | Court grants petition; all statutory and Intel factors satisfied |
| Whether the foreign tribunal (Paraguayan court) would be receptive to U.S. judicial assistance | Aron provides evidence Paraguay has previously sought U.S. assistance under § 1782 and offers no indication Paraguay would object | No counter-argument presented | Court finds sufficient evidence of receptivity |
| Whether the discovery request circumvents foreign restrictions or policies | Aron asserts no attempt to evade Paraguayan law or procedures | No evidence or claims to contrary | Court sees no circumvention |
| Whether the proposed discovery is unduly burdensome or intrusive | Aron limits request to business records related to Doral and the litigation | No challenge presented; addressed in petitioner’s arguments | Court finds request proportional, not unduly burdensome |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (sets out factors for discretionary judicial assistance under 28 U.S.C. § 1782)
- Four Pillars Enters. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirms broad district court discretion under § 1782)
- In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1976) (ex parte nature of § 1782 proceedings and procedural safeguards for witnesses)
- Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for foreign tribunal's receptivity to § 1782 discovery)