1:20-mc-23410
S.D. Fla.Dec 2, 2020Background
- Decedent (Rodrigo Ernesto Holguin Lourido) died in Colombia on December 29, 2019; he had assets in Colombia and the U.S., including Florida.
- Decedent executed a Florida Will (June 18, 2019) that omitted his wife, Mary Ann James de Holguin, and left U.S. property to his children and a Yucao Trust; Ms. Rubio (tax associate at Shutts & Bowen) helped prepare and witnessed the Florida Will.
- Decedent’s daughter Camila opened probate in Miami-Dade County; Holguin filed a counter-petition in the Florida probate case and a separate Florida suit challenging the Will as procured by undue influence, seeking revocation and intestate distribution.
- Decedent’s children filed an intestate succession action in Cali, Colombia; Holguin, preparing to participate in the Colombian Proceeding, sought documents and all communications between Respondents (Shutts & Bowen and Ms. Rubio) and Decedent.
- Holguin filed a § 1782 application in federal court in S.D. Fla. seeking documents (e.g., Yucao Trust agreement, other testamentary instruments, translations, communications); Respondents opposed, arguing Florida courts are the proper forum and can compel the materials.
- Magistrate Judge Torres recommended denying the § 1782 application; granting in part and denying in part the motion to strike (striking allegations of a romantic relationship from the public record); denying the motion for in camera review as moot; and denying the cross-motion to compel return of documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1782 discovery is appropriate to obtain documents and communications for use in the Colombian Proceeding | Holguin: without § 1782 relief she will be foreclosed from obtaining key evidence and assets for the Colombian Proceeding | Respondents: Florida probate and Holguin’s separate Florida suit can and should be used to obtain the same documents; Florida courts can subpoena third-party counsel | Denied exercise of discretion under § 1782 because Florida proceedings are better suited and can compel the documents |
| Motion to strike allegations that Ms. Rubio had a romantic relationship with Decedent | Holguin: allegations included in pleadings (relevance implied to undue influence claims) | Respondents: allegations are false, immaterial, scandalous and should be removed from the public record | Granted in part: struck romantic-relationship allegations from the public record; other relief denied |
| Motion for leave to file under seal and for in camera review of alleged communications between Decedent and Ms. Rubio | Holguin: seeks in camera review of communications she contends exist and are relevant | Respondents: opposed sealing and in camera review | Denied as moot (court declined to review because § 1782 relief was declined) |
| Cross-motion to compel Holguin and counsel to return documents/communications to Respondents | Respondents: seek return of their documents and communications allegedly obtained by Holguin/counsel | Holguin: opposed | Denied (Respondents may seek relief in Florida proceedings instead) |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (sets discretionary Intel factors for § 1782 relief)
- In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (statutory requirements for § 1782 applications)
- In the Matter of Lancaster Factoring Co., Ltd., 90 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1996) (purpose of § 1782 to aid foreign tribunals and litigants)
- In re Metallgesellschaft, 121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997) (district courts exercise discretion in § 1782 relief)
- United Kingdom v. United States, 238 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2001) (district court compliance with § 1782 is not mandatory)
- Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, M.D., 756 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (Florida courts can compel discovery from nonparty attorneys)