# Shields v. Federation Internationale De Natation

> District Court, N.D. California · November 23, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065903

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** November 23, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065903

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065903. Public record. Not legal advice.