In re Application of Quadre Investments, L.P. and Oasis Focus Fund LP for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, 3:24-mc-01341

Petitioners (Quadre Investments, L.P., and Oasis Focus Fund LP) seek U.S. court-ordered discovery from TuSimple Holdings, a non-party California company, in connection with a shareholder appraisal proceeding pending in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands regarding SINA Corporation’s fair value after a 2020 merger.
This is Petitioners’ third attempt, after two earlier Section 1782 applications were denied or withdrawn, both seeking discovery on the value of TuSimple at the time of its 2021 IPO, asserting undervaluation of SINA shares.
The Cayman Court’s June 3, 2024 ruling broadened discovery in the underlying proceeding, allowing post-valuation date discovery up to TuSimple’s IPO date and requiring SINA to produce related documents.
Petitioners argued the new Cayman order justified their request for seven categories of TuSimple documents, allegedly needed for their valuation expert in the Cayman proceeding.
TuSimple opposed, arguing the discovery is not relevant or proportional, much can be obtained from SINA (a party to the foreign proceeding), and Petitioners failed to follow proper discovery procedure in Cayman.
The U.S. Magistrate Judge found the statutory “for use” requirement of Section 1782 was met but denied the application under the discretionary Intel factors, emphasizing Petitioners’ failure to show irrelevance, burden, circumvention of Cayman process, and lack of expert support.

Issue	Petitioners’ Argument	TuSimple’s Argument	Held
Whether statutory “for use” requirement met	Cayman Court now allows post-valuation discovery; requests are relevant and will aid their valuation expert	Information sought not shown to be relevant; no expert request; relevance is not clear	Requirement is met given Cayman Court's new order
Whether discovery is unobtainable absent §1782	TuSimple is a non-party, not within Cayman Court jurisdiction; discovery not available from SINA	Most documents are obtainable from SINA; Petitioners have not exhausted Cayman discovery	Factor weighed against granting application
Whether requesting party is circumventing foreign proof-gathering restrictions	Seeking U.S. assistance is appropriate, not prohibited or improper under Cayman law	Attempt to bypass Cayman procedures; SINA not yet produced disclosures; procedural circumvention	Factor weighed against granting application
Whether requests are unduly intrusive/burdensome	Requests are narrowly tailored to IPO value, limited in scope and time	Overbroad; no expert explanation of relevance; already or soon to be available from SINA	Requests not narrowly tailored; factor against
Cayman Court’s receptivity to U.S. judicial assistance	Cayman Court would likely consider such evidence	No showing that duplicative/irrelevant documents would be accepted	Court found this factor neutral

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (establishes discretionary factors for Section 1782 discovery)
Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 931 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2019) (explains courts’ discretion under § 1782)
Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 34 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1994) (special restriction for non-party discovery)
Dart Indus. Co. v. Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) (nonparty discovery protection)