In Re: Terra Invest, LLC, 1:21-cv-23332

Terra Invest filed an ex parte 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application in S.D. Fla. seeking subpoenas to obtain documents and a deposition from non-party Vladislav Doronin for use in Russian civil/criminal proceedings concerning an alleged fraud tied to a Moscow real-estate project.
The court initially granted the ex parte application; Doronin’s counsel accepted the subpoenas while reserving objections.
Doronin moved to vacate the order and quash the subpoenas, arguing he neither resides nor is found in the Southern District of Florida; Capital Group later intervened and moved to quash as well.
Key legal questions were whether Doronin “resides or is found” in the district (§ 1782(a) jurisdictional requirement) and whether the requested evidence is “for use” in the foreign proceedings.
The magistrate judge found Doronin domiciled in Switzerland, that he was not personally served (so not “found” in the district) and that Terra Invest’s discovery requests were speculative rather than demonstrably “for use” in the Russian proceedings.
Recommendation: grant both motions and dismiss the § 1782 application for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Intel discretionary factors were not addressed because statutory requirements were unmet.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doronin "resides" in S.D. Fla. for § 1782	Terra Invest pointed to local media, property materials and references to Doronin’s Star Island mansion as his residence.	Doronin swore he is domiciled in Switzerland, spent <100 days in FL in 2021, has no FL licenses, bank accounts, or property ownership indicative of domicile.	Court: Doronin domiciled in Switzerland; Terra Invest failed to show legal residence in S.D. Fla.; factor unmet.
Whether Doronin is "found" in S.D. Fla. for § 1782	Service was accepted by Doronin’s counsel; Terra Invest suggested Doronin’s presence at Star Island and forum contacts could make him "found" here.	Acceptance by counsel is not personal service/tagging; Terra Invest offered no specific discovery tied to forum contacts.	Court: No personal service (tagging) occurred and no proximate forum connection shown; not "found" in district; factor unmet.
Whether requested discovery is "for use" in the foreign proceeding	Terra Invest said the evidence would relate to an alleged loan-swap fraud involving Capital Group and thus aid Russian litigation or damages claims.	Capital Group and Doronin argued the loan-swap theory is not the subject of active Russian proceedings and Terra Invest’s requests are speculative/fishing.	Court: Evidence not shown to be demonstrably relevant or "for use" in active Russian proceedings; statutory "for use" requirement unmet; Intel factors not reached.

In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (sets § 1782 statutory requirements and framework)
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (articulates discretionary factors for § 1782 relief)
In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2002) (personal service/tagging determines when a person is "found" in the district)
In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019) (forum-connection/proximate-result test for being "found" in the district)
In re Schlich, 893 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2018) ("for use" requires evidence that will be employed to advantage in the foreign proceeding)