In re Carlton Masters for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding
315 F. Supp. 3d 269
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Applicant Carlton Masters, owner of GoodWorks and Nigerian subsidiary GWI, seeks to compel Bank of America (U.S.) and Citibank Nigeria to produce 2004 bank statements and wire-transfer records under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to aid a pending Nigerian suit over title to Lagos property.
- Masters alleges he wired $700,000 from GoodWorks' Bank of America account to GWI's Citibank Nigeria account in 2004 to purchase the property; a local attorney (Okafor) allegedly titled the property in his own business's name.
- Masters filed an ex parte § 1782 application to serve subpoenas on the two banks; the district court ordered him to show cause for ex parte treatment; Okafor filed an opposition and the court treated Okafor's filing as amicus.
- Statutory requirements of § 1782 were discussed: (1) respondent must reside in or be found in the district; (2) discovery must be for use in a foreign proceeding; (3) applicant must be an interested person. The court found (2) and (3) satisfied.
- The central dispute: whether Bank of America and Citibank are "found" in the D.D.C. — Masters relied on retail branches, ATMs, local private-banking/Merrill operations, and a sponsorship to show systemic and continuous local activity; Okafor argued such contacts are insufficient.
- The court concluded Masters failed to show the banks were "found" in the district (no general or specific jurisdiction nexus), and therefore denied the § 1782 application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the banks are "found" in D.D.C. for § 1782 | Masters: Banks conduct systematic, continuous business in D.C. via branches, ATMs, U.S. Trust/Merrill operations, and sponsorships, so they are "found" here | Okafor: Branches/ATMs and sponsorship are insufficient; banks not incorporated or headquartered here; no supporting precedent | Denied — applicant failed to show banks are "found" in the district; contacts insufficient for general or specific jurisdiction |
| Whether § 1782 statutory elements otherwise satisfied | Masters: Discovery relates to claims in Nigerian suit and he is an interested party | Okafor: Does not dispute use-in-foreign-proceeding or applicant status | Court: Elements (use in foreign proceeding; interested person) satisfied but statutory residency/found requirement not met |
| Whether ex parte consideration was appropriate | Masters: § 1782 applications may be considered ex parte; banks will have notice later | Okafor: Opposed implicitly by arguing merits; raised no specific ex parte objection | Court: Ex parte review appropriate here; denied on other grounds |
| Whether § 1782 discretion (Intel factors) favors discovery | Masters: Evidence from banks is necessary and relevant to foreign suit | Okafor: Not reached in detail; argued jurisdictional defect ends inquiry | Court: Did not reach Intel-factor balancing because statutory "found in" requirement failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (Sup. Ct.) (district courts exercise discretion when granting § 1782 discovery)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (Sup. Ct.) (general personal jurisdiction exists only where corporation is essentially at home)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for general jurisdiction analysis)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (branch offices and ATMs insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- In re Application of Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., 821 F.Supp.2d 289 (D.D.C.) (discussing overlap between § 1782 "found in" inquiry and personal jurisdiction)
- In re Application of Leret, 51 F.Supp.3d 66 (D.D.C.) (statutory elements for § 1782 applications)