1:20-mc-24981
S.D. Fla.Mar 10, 2021Background
- Applicants Inmobiliaria Tova, S.A. and Mini Depositos Denpar seek discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from Revlon Consumer Products Corp. (Revlon CPC) in the Southern District of Florida for use in a contemplated Venezuelan civil suit against Revlon Overseas Corp. (Revlon Venezuela) arising from a 2011 Denpar Building fire.
- Applicants delayed more than eight years before seeking § 1782 relief; the applicable Venezuelan ten‑year statute of limitations expires June 5, 2021.
- Revlon CPC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, but maintains two Florida offices and a registered agent in the district.
- This was the applicants’ third § 1782 filing in Florida (first denied without prejudice; second initially granted then vacated and subpoena quashed). The proposed subpoena sought broad financial, insurance, successor‑entity, and other documents.
- The magistrate judge denied the renewed application, concluding Revlon CPC is not "found" in the district (no general or specific jurisdiction), the subpoena is overbroad and noncompliant with Rule 30(b)(6), and the Intel discretionary factors do not support relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Revlon CPC is "found" in the district for § 1782 purposes | Revlon CPC has two local offices and a registered agent; thus it can be "found" here | Revlon CPC is incorporated in Delaware with PPB in New York; Daimler requires a corporation be "essentially at home" to be subject to general jurisdiction | Revlon CPC is not "found" in the district; plaintiffs failed to show an exceptional case or general jurisdiction; court lacks jurisdiction under § 1782 |
| Whether the requested discovery is "for use" in a reasonably contemplated foreign proceeding | Applicants retained Venezuelan counsel and intend to file a civil suit once U.S. evidence is obtained; statute of limitations is imminent | Applicants present no reliable indication proceedings will be filed promptly, unexplained delay, ongoing Venezuelan criminal investigation, and requests look like a fishing expedition | Applicants failed to show reliable indications that a foreign suit is reasonably contemplated; "for use" requirement not satisfied as presented (factor weighs against) |
| Intel discretionary factors (participant status; receptivity; circumvention; burden) | Discovery is needed and Venezuela would accept evidence obtained under § 1782 | Requests seek parent‑company discovery about a subsidiary (making target a putative participant); requests are overbroad and seek collection‑type financial material | First and fourth Intel factors weigh against (parent = participant; requests intrusive/overbroad); second favors applicants; third neutral; overall counsels denial |
| Applicability of tag jurisdiction and compliance with federal discovery rules (Rule 30(b)(6)) | Service on registered agent and local presence support being "found"; Revlon has employees in district who could testify | Tag (Burnham) does not apply to corporations; subpoena fails to describe matters with particularity and potential corporate witnesses are in New York | Tag jurisdiction does not apply to corporations; subpoena is overbroad and noncompliant with Rule 30(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general‑jurisdiction standard; corporation must be "essentially at home")
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (§ 1782 statutory framework and discretionary Intel factors)
- In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (Eleventh Circuit summary of § 1782 prerequisites and Intel factors)
- Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 747 F.3d 1262 (Eleventh Circuit on "for use" element and foreign‑proceeding analysis)
- In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. on specific jurisdiction nexus for § 1782 discovery)
- In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. guidance on being "found" in a district for § 1782)
- Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604 (tag jurisdiction for individuals; court distinguishes corporate application)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (Supreme Court on limits of general jurisdiction)
- Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. on "exceptional case" for general jurisdiction)