314 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Petitioners Sasha and John DiGiulian filed an ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking an order to subpoena Dr. Edward T. Cullen (a D.C. resident) to produce medical records and testify for use in a Quebec Superior Court action contesting their grandmother Rita DiGiulian’s 2015 will on grounds of mental incapacity and undue influence.
- Petitioners alleged Rita showed dementia-like signs (including a June 5, 2015 deposition where she could not recall basic facts) and that Dr. Cullen was her primary care physician from 2013–2017.
- Requested discovery: Dr. Cullen’s records and correspondence concerning Rita from Jan. 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015; prescriptions, referrals; and a deposition.
- Dr. Cullen did not oppose the petition and voluntarily produced some records. Petitioners subsequently filed the Quebec action in February 2018.
- The District Court evaluated statutory prerequisites under § 1782 and then applied the Intel discretionary factors to determine whether to grant relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1782 statutory prerequisites are met (residence, use in foreign tribunal, interested person) | Petitioners: Dr. Cullen is found in D.C.; discovery is for use in a Quebec proceeding; petitioners are interested persons | Dr. Cullen did not contest residence or other prerequisites | Granted: prerequisites satisfied |
| Whether court should exercise discretion under Intel factors (nonparticipant status) | Petitioners: Dr. Cullen is a nonparticipant in Quebec action and outside its subpoena power | No opposition; some records provided voluntarily | Weighs for granting (nonparticipant favors §1782 aid) |
| Receptivity of foreign tribunal and character/timing of proceedings | Petitioners: Quebec Superior Court will accept records/testimony; proceedings are in early stages and discovery is appropriate | No evidence foreign court would reject §1782-obtained evidence | Weighs for granting (no authoritative proof of rejection; proceedings receptive) |
| Scope, relevance, and burden (intrusiveness) of requested discovery | Petitioners: records 1/1/2013–6/30/2015 are narrowly tailored to issues of capacity at key dates and deposition testimony is necessary | Dr. Cullen has voluntarily produced some records; no objections | Weighs for granting (relevant, narrowly tailored, not unduly burdensome) |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (Sup. Ct.) (sets discretionary framework for § 1782 applications)
- In re Barnwell Enters. Ltd., 265 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017) (applies Intel factors in § 1782 context)
- Lazaridis v. Int'l Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children, Inc., 760 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2011) (discusses § 1782 standards and discretionary considerations)
- In re Caratube Int'l Oil Co., 730 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2010) (analyzes receptivity and scope under § 1782)