In re Ex Parte Application oF S.T., a minor, by and through her parents M.T. and F.T.
5:25-mc-80102
| N.D. Cal. | May 29, 2025Background
- An anonymous minor, S.T., a Japanese high school student, filed an ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the Northern District of California.
- S.T. seeks discovery from Meta Platforms, Inc. (Instagram's operator) based in California, to uncover the identities of individuals who sent her threatening and unwanted messages on Instagram.
- The communications came from as many as 40 anonymous Instagram accounts, and S.T. intends to bring civil lawsuits in Japan for stalking and threatening behavior once the individuals are identified.
- The application was accompanied by a proposed subpoena requesting identifying account information and access logs related to the anonymous accounts.
- S.T. asserted that Japanese courts are receptive to discovery obtained via U.S. federal courts and that the request is not an attempt to circumvent Japanese or U.S. law.
- The court reviewed the matter ex parte, as is standard for §1782 requests, noting that Meta can later challenge the subpoena.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1782 Statutory Requirements Met | Meta resides in district; discovery for Japanese suit; S.T. is interested party | Not presented | Requirements satisfied |
| Intel Factor 1: Meta as Foreign Proceeding Party | Meta not a participant in Japanese proceeding | Not presented | Favors granting |
| Intel Factor 2: Japanese Court Receptivity | Japanese courts accept U.S discovery aid | Not presented | Favors granting |
| Intel Factor 3: Circumvention of Restrictions | Not circumventing rules; evidence unavailable in Japan | Not presented | Favors granting |
| Intel Factor 4: Undue Burden or Intrusion | Requests are targeted, relevant, not overbroad | Not presented | Favors granting with 45-day subpoena |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (sets forth § 1782 scope, discretion, and Intel factors)
- Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (district court discretion post-§1782 threshold)
- Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1976) (Japanese court’s receptivity to U.S. discovery)