Shared Partnership v. Meta Platforms, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SHARED PARTNERSHIP, 10 Case No. 22-cv-02366-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING 12 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR META PLATFORMS, INC., ISSUANCE OF LETTER ROGATORY 13 Defendant. 14 15 Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) moves for issuance of a letter rogatory (a “letter 16 of request”) in order to obtain documents and deposition testimony from third-party Sampford 17 Advisors, an entity located in Canada. Plaintiff Shared Partnership (“Shared”) does not oppose this 18 administrative motion. In this case, Shared alleges that Meta’s conduct affected Shared’s 19 valuation. See Dkt. 21 ¶ 51 (First Amended Complaint). Meta contends Sampford Advisors served 20 as a consultant for Shared and “played a critical role in determining the purported enterprise value 21 of Shared during the relevant period.” See Dkt. 62, at 2. Meta, thus, seeks the issuance of this letter 22 rogatory in order to obtain discovery from Sampford Advisors in order to prepare its defenses in 23 this case. 24 Courts have the inherent power to issue letters rogatory. See United States v. Staples, 256 25 F.2d 290, 292 (1958). A letter rogatory is a court’s request to a foreign court to take evidence from 26 a foreign witness. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 n.1 (2004). 27 This evidence may include deposition testimony. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)(B). Motions 1 reason for their denial. See, e.g., Successor Agency to Former Emeryville Redevelopment Agency 2 v. Swagelok Co., No. 17-cv-308, 2020 WL 7042860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020). Of course, the 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define the appropriate scope of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 || 26(b) (scope of discovery limited to relevant, nonprivileged matter). 5 Issuance of the requested letter rogatory is necessary for Meta to obtain the discovery to 6 || which it is entitled. The requested discovery is relevant to determining potential damages in this 7 case given the role Sampford Advisors allegedly played in coming up with a valuation of Shared. 8 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Good cause having been shown, Meta’s motion for issuance of a 9 |} letter rogatory is granted. Meta’s proposed letter of request, along with its attached Schedules, will 10 || be issued. 11 12 || ITISSO ORDERED. 14 Dated: February 8, 2024 15 Me Lh RICHARD SEEBORG = 16 Chief United States District Judge = 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 98 ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION . CASE No. 22-cv-02366-RS