Pishevar v. Fusion Gps
Misc. No. 2021-0105
D.D.C.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Shervin Pishevar seeks discovery from Fusion GPS under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in contemplated legal proceedings in the UK relating to a forged police report implicating him in a sexual assault accusation.
- Previous Section 1782 applications in other courts targeting other sources did not yield the information; Pishevar now seeks documents and deposition testimony from Fusion GPS, contending evidence links them to the report’s dissemination.
- Fusion GPS denies having any relevant information or knowledge about the report, its source, or any related client.
- Magistrate Judge Meriweather initially granted Pishevar’s ex parte request for subpoenas to Fusion GPS, with notice that Fusion GPS could move to quash upon service.
- Fusion GPS moved to quash or for a protective order, arguing undue burden, irrelevance, and lack of Section 1782 statutory basis.
- The matter was briefed and argued; the current opinion addresses that motion.
Issues
| Issue | Pishevar's Argument | Fusion GPS’s Argument | Held (Court’s Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undue burden of subpoenas | Requests are targeted and relevant to UK proceedings | Burdensome since Fusion GPS lacks requested info | Merely claiming they lack info doesn’t justify quashing; must respond accordingly |
| Relevance of demanded information | Sought info is relevant: identity/source of forged report | Overbroad, not all info is relevant | Some requests overbroad; court narrows scope but mostly permits discovery |
| Appropriateness under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 | Contemplated UK proceedings are within § 1782 scope | No real/ongoing foreign proceeding, so not 'for use' | Pishevar's application meets § 1782 'for use' requirement based on evidence |
| Application of discretionary Intel factors | Discovery is efficient, not unduly intrusive or burdensome | Factors (esp. burden, circumvention) against it | Discovery is appropriate; factors do not weigh against limited subpoenas |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (provided the four discretionary factors for Section 1782 applications and clarified the 'for use' standard, allowing discovery for contemplated foreign proceedings)
- Watts v. SEC, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (addressed scope of relevance requirement for discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26/45)
- AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1–1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (affirmed right of subpoenaed parties to challenge ex parte Section 1782 orders)