In re: Macquarie Bank Limited, 2:14-cv-00797

Macquarie Bank sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from Respondent Ma for use in Dutch proceedings related to Juno, Jupiter, Minerva, Liberty, Vesta Funding, and Hestia.
The court previously granted ex parte § 1782 relief to issue subpoenas, with Respondent later challenging the subpoenas.
Ma resided in this district when served; Petitioner is a party to the foreign proceedings; third statutory requirement is met.
Ma is alleged to be a director or controller of the entities involved; the bailiff in the Dutch proceeding is tasked with gathering information for the sale of Jupiter’s shares.
There is overlap between requested discovery and information the Dutch bailiff is seeking; Amsterdam stayed related actions, but Petitioner sought US discovery directly.
The court ultimately denied the motion to compel and quashed the subpoenas, concluding the discovery is overly broad and located largely outside the United States.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1782 statutory requirements are satisfied	Macquarie asserts residency, use in foreign proceedings, and proper applicant status.	Ma challenges whether discovery is for use in foreign proceedings and other statutory elements.	Statutory requirements met.
Whether the court should exercise discretion to grant discovery	Discovery is appropriate to aid Dutch proceedings	Discovery is overly broad, burdensome, and may circumvent foreign proceedings.	Discretionary factors weigh against discovery.
Whether the material sought is within the foreign tribunal's reach	Information is needed from Ma and related entities; some data could be obtained via the Dutch bailiff.	Most documents are within the Dutch court’s reach and the bailiff’s scope; court should defer.	militates against discovery; material largely within Amsterdam's reach.
Whether the foreign tribunal would be receptive to U.S. discovery	Netherlands court proceedings have shown receptivity via bailiff process.	Bailiff previously equivocal; concerns about stays and duplicative efforts.	Receptivity is neutral to slightly against discovery.
Whether the burdens and location of documents render the request unduly burdensome	Requests are targeted to specific transactions and categories.	Requests are broad, encompass past decade, and require cross-border search.	Burden outweighs benefit; overbroad and location-limited.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (dictates discretionary factors for § 1782 review)
Four Pillars Enterprises Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) (discretionary factors and aims of § 1782)
In re Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997) (balances competing discovery interests under § 1782)
In re Microsoft Corp., 428 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (scope and reach of § 1782 discovery)
In re Dubey, 949 F. Supp. 2d 990 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (courts weigh jurisdictional reach and burden in § 1782 requests)