304 F.R.D. 10
D.D.C.2014Background
- The Government filed an in rem civil forfeiture action seeking one Gulfstream G‑V aircraft allegedly purchased with proceeds of public corruption tied to Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue (Nguema), Equatorial Guinea’s Second Vice President.
- Nguema filed a verified claim to contest forfeiture; court granted limited expedited discovery to determine his standing (i.e., his interest in the Aircraft).
- The Government noticed Nguema’s deposition for April 23, 2014 in Washington, D.C.; Nguema refused to attend and moved for a protective order to prevent an in‑person deposition in D.C. and to require alternatives (written questions, telephone/videoconference, or deposition in Equatorial Guinea).
- The Government opposed, arguing forum deposition was proper because Nguema filed a claim here, purchased the Aircraft in the U.S., and the court should better supervise discovery in person.
- The Court granted Nguema’s motion, concluding he demonstrated good cause: sovereignty and high‑ranking official concerns, limited scope of expedited discovery (standing), availability of adequate alternatives (videoconference, written questions, or in‑person in Equatorial Guinea), and no special circumstances justifying travel to D.C.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a foreign, high‑ranking claimant can be compelled to appear for deposition in forum (D.C.) | Forum deposition appropriate because claimant filed a claim here, purchased Aircraft in U.S., and court supervision favors D.C. | Requiring travel is burdensome, implicates foreign sovereignty and special protections for senior officials; claimant proposed deposition in Equatorial Guinea or remotely. | Court: claimant met burden for protective order; not required to appear in D.C. for deposition. |
| Whether presumption favors deposition at witness’s location | Govt: filing a claim in forum weakens presumption; Kokko suggests court can order deposition in forum absent good cause. | Claimant: presumption that depositions occur where deponent resides; filing claim does not override that when deponent is foreign official. | Court: presumption favors deposing at deponent’s location; Govt failed to show special circumstances to overcome it. |
| Whether foreign sovereignty/comity requires forum deposition or permits local (foreign soil) deposition | Govt: taking deposition on foreign soil may implicate sovereignty; safer to depose in U.S. | Claimant: deposition in Equatorial Guinea avoids U.S. ordering a foreign official to travel; claimant consents to Federal Rules applying there. | Court: foreign‑sovereignty concerns favor allowing deposition in Equatorial Guinea (or remotely); special protections for high‑ranking officials weigh against compelling travel. |
| Whether remote methods (videoconference, telephone, written questions) are adequate | Govt: remote methods risk murky record, technical problems, exhibit handling, inability to observe demeanor; prefers in‑person in U.S. | Claimant: videoconference and other remote methods are practical, efficient, and sufficient for narrow standing inquiry; Malabo has adequate infrastructure. | Court: videoconference and other remote/in‑country alternatives are reasonable here given narrow scope and official status; Government may choose method (videoconference likely most efficient). |
Key Cases Cited
- Avirgan v. Hull, 118 F.R.D. 252 (D.D.C.) (moving party bears burden to show protective order necessity)
- Farquhar v. Shelden, 116 F.R.D. 70 (E.D. Mich.) (presumption that discovery occurs where witnesses are located absent special circumstances)
- Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V., 292 F.R.D. 19 (D.D.C.) (location of depositions lies within court’s discretion)
- In re Outsidewall Tire Litig., 267 F.R.D. 466 (E.D. Va.) (presumption stronger when deponent resides in foreign country)
- Shockey v. Huhtamaki, Inc., 280 F.R.D. 598 (D. Kan.) (Rule 30 permits videoconference depositions)