In re Leret
51 F. Supp. 3d 66
D.D.C.2014Background
- Applicants Patrick Leret and Luis Gonzalez sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) from Alvaro Roche Cisneros (resident of D.C.) to obtain testimony and documents for use in three related Venezuelan shareholder disputes involving Grupo Los Principitos.
- Roche is a party to two of the three foreign proceedings; applicants filed the § 1782 application in D.C. in September 2013 and the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Facciola.
- Magistrate Judge Facciola issued an order denying the § 1782(a) application after a show-cause process, relying chiefly on Roche’s voluntary offer (by declaration executed in Caracas) to submit to the foreign discovery process in Venezuela.
- The magistrate concluded that, given Roche’s willingness to comply in Venezuela, the Court should exercise its discretion to deny § 1782 relief to avoid prejudicing parties and to further § 1782’s twin aims of assisting foreign litigation and encouraging reciprocal assistance.
- Applicants objected to the magistrate’s order; the district court reviewed under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard and ultimately overruled the objections but amended the order to dismiss without prejudice, allowing renewal if Roche fails to comply in Venezuela.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has statutory authority under § 1782(a) to order Roche to produce testimony/documents | § 1782 applies because Roche is found in the district, the discovery is for use in foreign tribunals, and applicants are interested persons | Roche does not dispute residency or use; primary defense focused on discretionary reasons to deny | Court: Authority exists (statutory prerequisites met) |
| Proper standard of review for magistrate judge's order | Objections should be reviewed de novo | Order reviewed under Local Civ. R. 72.2: clearly erroneous or contrary to law | Court: Standard is clearly erroneous or contrary to law; magistrate entitled to deference |
| Whether § 1782 relief should be granted in exercise of discretion (Intel factors) | Applicants argued relief appropriate and not precluded by Roche’s statements | Roche offered to submit to Venezuelan discovery; magistrate relied on Roche’s willingness and participant status to deny relief | Court: Magistrate’s discretionary denial was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law; reliance on Intel factors (participant status/voluntariness) permissible |
| Appropriate relief after denial (stay/amend/dismiss) | Applicants asked to overturn or stay/amend to allow refiling later | Roche opposed stay; offered voluntary compliance in Venezuela | Court: Denial sustained; will not stay; application dismissed without prejudice so applicants may renew if Roche fails to submit in Venezuela |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (Sup. Ct.) (articulates discretionary Intel factors for § 1782 requests)
- Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Chubb Ins. Co. of Canada, 384 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C.) (discusses § 1782 threshold and magistrate-review practice)
- Southern Pac. Communications Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 740 F.2d 980 (D.C. Cir.) (standard on appellate review of factual findings)
- Schmitz v. Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir.) (discusses § 1782’s twin aims and international cooperation)
- In re Thai-Lao Lignite (Thail.) Co., 821 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D.D.C.) (applies § 1782 twin aims in discretionary analysis)