In re Optus Administration Pty Limited, 5:16-mc-80013

Optus Administration Pty Ltd. (Optus) seeks leave under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to subpoena Yahoo! Inc. in the Northern District of California for evidence to use in litigation in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Australia).
Optus sues former employee Elif Ketencioglu (and her husband Sinan) in Australia for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and breach of duty of fidelity after discovering emails sent to personal Yahoo accounts prior to Elif leaving for a rival.
Defendants provided Yahoo account credentials; Optus found potentially responsive emails were deleted and contends Yahoo’s assistance is needed to recover them.
Yahoo7 (an Australian affiliate) provided information for Sinan’s account but stated that Elif’s account is maintained by Yahoo (U.S.), so Optus moved in this Court to compel Yahoo to produce account data and emails.
The subpoena seeks sent-mail metadata and copies of sent messages from Elif’s Yahoo account for a one-year period and messages containing specific attachments or keywords; the Australian court ordered the parties to cooperate and did not oppose the subpoena.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1782 statutory requirements are met for discovery from Yahoo in N.D. Cal. for use in Australian litigation	Optus: Yahoo’s U.S. HQ is in Sunnyvale; discovery is for use in the New South Wales proceeding and Optus is an interested party	Yahoo: (implicit) challenge unnecessary because jurisdiction and interest disputed? (no specific contrary argument in record)	Court: Statutory requirements satisfied (person in district, foreign proceeding, interested person)
Whether discretionary Intel factors support granting § 1782 relief	Optus: All four Intel factors favor disclosure (Yahoo not within foreign court’s jurisdiction, Australian court receptive, not circumvention, subpoenas not unduly burdensome)	Yahoo: argued burden would be significant? Court noted Yahoo’s business model makes compliance less burdensome	Court: All discretionary factors weigh in favor of granting relief
Whether the requested subpoenas are unduly intrusive or burdensome	Optus: Requests are targeted (time range, attachments, keywords) and not unduly burdensome given Yahoo’s data-processing capabilities	Yahoo: (implicitly) compliance could be burdensome; record rejects heavy-burden claim	Court: Requests are not unduly intrusive or burdensome; grant subpoena

Mullis v. United States Bank, 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987) (interpreting Fed. R. Evid. 201 and judicial notice procedures)
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (sets discretionary factors for § 1782 discovery)