Miya Water Projects Netherlands B v., Misc. No. 2023-0043

Background

Miya Water Projects Netherlands B.V., a Dutch water-services firm, was designated the "Preferred Proponent" for Puerto Rico’s Water Metering Project but alleges the RFP was cancelled and reissued to favor rivals (Xylem/Sensus and BLU consortium), costing Miya millions.
Miya alleges a scheme involving Xylem/Sensus, Moonshot Missions and George Hawkins, and former CG/LA CEO Norman Anderson to sabotage the original RFP and shape the new one.
Miya retained Dutch counsel and contemplates tort litigation in the Netherlands against Moonshot, Hawkins, and Xylem/Sensus; it seeks evidence to support those claims.
CG/LA’s digital files (a hard drive) are part of CG/LA’s bankruptcy estate; the Bankruptcy Trustee retained a backup and the Bankruptcy Court authorized compliance with an external subpoena.
Miya filed an amended application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to subpoena the hard drive from the Trustee; it proposed a protective order using a third‑party vendor to filter files by targeted search terms.
The magistrate judge reviewed the § 1782 application ex parte (after attempted service), found the statutory requirements and Intel discretionary factors satisfied, and granted the application subject to a protective order and preservation obligations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1782 statutory prerequisites are met (person found in district; foreign proceeding pending or reasonably contemplated; interested person)	Miya: CG/LA (and its Trustee) are located in D.C.; Miya has retained Dutch counsel, developed tort claims and has factual support; Miya intends to sue in the Netherlands.	CG/LA/others (implicit): proceedings speculative; discovery not for use in a foreign tribunal.	Court: Requirements satisfied—CG/LA/Trustee found in D.C.; Dutch litigation reasonably contemplated; Miya is an interested person.
Whether ex parte consideration was appropriate	Miya: attempted service multiple times; CG/LA’s principal unresponsive; Trustee and counsel were notified.	Opposing view: parties should receive notice before relief.	Court: Ex parte review appropriate given Miya’s good‑faith service attempts and apparent evasion.
Whether to exercise discretion under Intel factors	Miya: CG/LA is a nonparticipant; Dutch courts receptive to § 1782 evidence; not seeking to circumvent foreign rules; proposed narrowly tailored vendor search minimizes burden.	Opposing view: requests could be overbroad, intrusive, or capture privileged material.	Court: All four Intel factors weigh in favor of granting discovery. Protective procedures mitigate intrusiveness.
Privilege and burden concerns; adequacy of proposed protective order	Miya: third‑party vendor will filter files via metadata and search terms; destroy irrelevant material; destroy or seek court resolve for privileged items.	Opposing view: privileged materials may exist; production could be burdensome or violate privilege.	Court: Protective order and vendor process sufficiently address burden and privilege; sale/transfer of drive likely waived privilege; subpoena granted subject to protective order and Bankruptcy Court conditions.

Key Cases Cited

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (statutory framework and discretionary factors for § 1782)
CFTC v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343 (bankruptcy trustee can waive privilege)
In re Veiga, 746 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010) (discussing § 1782 statutory requisites and Intel factors)
In re DiGiulian, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018) (analysis of Intel second factor and receptivity)
In re Certain Funds, Accounts, and/or Inv. Vehicles Managed by Affiliates of Fortress Inv. Grp. LLC, 798 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (what shows a foreign proceeding is in reasonable contemplation)
In re Hulley Enters., Ltd., 358 F. Supp. 3d 331 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (permitting use of § 1782-obtained evidence in Dutch proceedings)