Shields v. Federation Internationale De Natation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING Case No. 18-cv-07394-JSC LEAGUE, LTD, Case No. 18-cv-07393-JSC 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 10 FÉDÉRA TION INTERNATIONALE DE F RO OR G AIS TS OU RA YN C TE O O CF E NL TE RTT AE LR 11 NATATION, AUTHORITY OF UNITED KINGDOM Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 192 12 THOMAS A. SHIELDS, et al., 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE 16 NATATION, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for issuance of a letter rogatory pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1781 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and 28(b). (Dkt. No. 192).1 21 Plaintiffs’ proposed letter rogatory seeks the deposition testimony of British Swimming’s Chief 22 Executive Officer Jack Buckner. (Id. at 3.) Defendant has not filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ 23 motion. After consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court determines that oral argument is 24 unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the December 3, 2020 hearing, and 25 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. 26 27 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 A letter rogatory is a formal request “from a court in which an action is pending[] to a 3 foreign court to perform some judicial act.” 22 C.F.R. § 92.54; see also Intel Corp. v. Advanced 4 Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 n.1 (2004) (defining “letter rogatory” as “the request by a 5 domestic court to a foreign court to take evidence from a certain witness”). The Federal Rules of 6 Civil Procedure provide for the taking of depositions within foreign countries through letters 7 rogatory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)(B) (“A deposition may be taken in a foreign country . . . 8 under a letter of request, whether or not captioned a ‘letter rogatory[.]’”). In accordance with Rule 9 28(b)(1)(B), “[t]he Department of State has power, directly, or through suitable channels . . . to 10 receive a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a tribunal in the United States, to transmit it to 11 the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it is addressed, and to receive and 12 return it after execution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1781(a)(2). 13 Courts have “inherent power to issue Letters Rogatory,” United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 14 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958), and “[w]hether to issue such a letter is a matter of discretion,” Barnes & 15 Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C 11-02709 EMC (LB), 2012 WL 1808849, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 16 17, 2012). “When determining whether to exercise its discretion, a court will generally not weigh 17 the evidence sought from the discovery request nor will it attempt to predict whether that 18 information will actually be obtained.” Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Global, Inc., No. C-05-05124 19 JCS, 2007 WL 1880369, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2007). A court must instead apply “Rule 28(b) 20 in light of the scope of discovery provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. 21 (collecting cases). Under Rule 26(b), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding nonprivileged 22 matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 23 DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiffs request the issuance of a letter rogatory to depose Mr. Buckner, asserting that his 25 testimony is relevant to prove Defendant “operated an antitrust scheme” that was global in nature 26 and “aimed at influen[cing] swimming bodies aside from just USA Swimming.” (Dkt. No. 192 at 27 3.) The Court agrees. Mr. Buckner’s testimony may reveal information regarding Defendant’s 1 not to host an ISL event, that is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding FINA’s anticompetitive 2 || conduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Additionally, the requested discovery does not run afoul of 3 Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which provides that courts “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery 4 || otherwise allowed” if the discovery sought “‘can be obtained from some other source that is more 5 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Here, there is no 6 || alternative source of the information sought. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for issuance of a 9 letter rogatory. The Court will sign and affix its seal to the letter rogatory submitted and return the 10 || letter with original signatures and seals to Plaintiffs’ counsel for forwarding to the United States 11 Department of State. 12 This Order disposes of Dkt. No. 192. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 23, 2020 16 fe AQQUELINE SCOTT COREY 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28