3:24-mc-80267
N.D. Cal.May 5, 2025Background
- Dimitrios Liapis is a defendant in a pending criminal case in Queensland, Australia, accused of sexually assaulting his ex-girlfriend’s daughter ("S.F.") in July 2018.
- Key evidence is an Instagram message screenshot allegedly sent by S.F. around the time of the alleged assault; metadata or authentication of the message is in dispute, and original data has not been produced.
- Neither the prosecution nor police in Australia obtained authentication or account-level information from Meta about the message despite its centrality to the case.
- Liapis sought this information directly from Meta through subpoenas in Australia, but Meta raised jurisdictional and statutory objections, refusing to comply.
- Liapis then filed an ex parte application in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to subpoena Meta for relevant documents and electronic information, asserting the data are crucial for his defense.
- Meta took no position on the subpoena’s issuance but reserved all rights to later object to its scope or compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1782 discovery is available against Meta | Liapis: Statutory criteria are met—Meta is in district, discovery for foreign case, Liapis an interested person | Meta: Took no position | All threshold § 1782 statutory requirements satisfied |
| Whether discretionary factors weigh in favor of discovery | Liapis: Meta is not party in Australia, evidence unobtainable otherwise, narrowly tailored requests | Meta: No formal objections yet, cites possible SCA concerns | All four Intel discretionary factors favor granting discovery, subject to limitations |
| Whether the discovery request contravenes the SCA | Liapis: Requests are limited, not seeking contents of communications | Meta: SCA may bar some requested data | Requests that seek message content are denied; non-content metadata, legal process documents allowed |
| Protection of victim identity and sensitive information | Liapis: Agrees to privacy protections/redactions if ordered | Meta: No stated objection | All personally identifying info regarding S.F. must be redacted/under seal to protect privacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (establishes standard and discretionary factors for § 1782 applications)
- Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 931 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2019) (sets out § 1782 statutory requirements)
- Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. FibroGen, Inc., 793 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2015) (interested person standing under § 1782)
- London v. Does 1-4, 279 F. App’x 513 (9th Cir. 2008) (identifying information like IPs, non-content subscriber data not barred by SCA)