162 F. Supp. 3d 1029
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Qualcomm received an Examiner’s Report from the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) alleging MRFTA antitrust violations based on appended data, some of which was produced by third parties and withheld or redacted from Qualcomm under KFTC confidentiality rules.
- Qualcomm filed ex parte applications under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking U.S. discovery (documents and depositions) from several U.S.-located third parties (Apple, Intel, MediaTek, Broadcom, Samsung entities, Texas Instruments, VIA) to prepare defenses for the KFTC Committee hearing.
- Several respondents opposed; the KFTC submitted an amicus brief (on KFTC letterhead, signed by the Examiner) opposing Qualcomm’s requests and urging denial on comity and confidentiality grounds.
- The district court found the § 1782 statutory prerequisites met (respondents “reside or are found” in the Northern District; the KFTC proceeding is a foreign “tribunal”; Qualcomm is an interested person) but assessed the four Intel discretionary factors.
- The court concluded Intel factors collectively weighed against granting relief because: (1) material availability under Intel was neutral, (2) the KFTC was not receptive to U.S. judicial assistance (comity), (3) the requests sought to circumvent Korean procedures protecting third‑party confidentiality, and (4) Qualcomm’s requests were overbroad and unduly intrusive/burdensome.
- The court denied Qualcomm’s § 1782 applications in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Qualcomm) | Defendant/Tribunal Argument (Respondents/KFTC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory prerequisites under § 1782 (found/resident; for use in foreign tribunal; interested person) | § 1782 elements satisfied: respondents are found in district; discovery for use before KFTC; Qualcomm is interested | Some respondents disputed whether they are “found” here; generally conceded KFTC is a tribunal but argued limited reach | Court: Statutory requirements satisfied for each respondent. |
| Intel factor 1 — availability of material to foreign tribunal | Materials not accessible to Qualcomm via KFTC; Section 1782 needed to obtain third‑party materials and exculpatory evidence | Many respondents cooperated with Examiner; unclear if Committee can compel production from those third parties | Court: Factor neutral — unclear whether KFTC/Committee can obtain all sought material from respondents. |
| Intel factor 2 & comity — receptivity of foreign tribunal and KFTC position | Even if Examiner filed amicus, Committee might accept U.S.‑obtained evidence; assistance would aid Qualcomm’s defense | KFTC (on its letterhead) opposes U.S. discovery; allowing it would subvert KFTC’s confidentiality rules and investigative process; not receptive | Court: Factor strongly favors respondents; accepts KFTC amicus as representing KFTC position and denies relief on comity grounds. |
| Intel factor 3 & 4 — circumvention of foreign proof‑gathering and burden/overbreadth | § 1782 can supplement KFTC procedures; Qualcomm needs broader discovery than KFTC’s appended data; requests are highly relevant | Qualcomm seeks to bypass Korean procedures protecting third‑party confidentiality; requests span many years, are globally untethered and include confidential materials subject to protective orders — unduly intrusive and burdensome | Court: Factors favor respondents — requests would circumvent KFTC procedures and are overbroad/unduly intrusive; denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (sets discretionary Intel factors for § 1782 requests)
- In re Godfrey, 526 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (discusses § 1782 scope and presence/found analysis)
- In re Microsoft Corp., 428 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (denying § 1782 relief where foreign tribunal opposed U.S. discovery)
- Four Pillars Enters. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) (discusses geographic scope of § 1782 and evidence located outside U.S.)