# Bonar

> District Court, S.D. California · March 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365661

## Case

- **Full name:** Dalrada Financial Corporation, a Wyoming corporation; Deposition Technology Ltd., a United Kingdom company and wholly owned subsidiary of Dalrada Financial Corp. v. William Ian Martin Bonar, as an individual and in his official capacity; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** March 12, 2026
- **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/11365661

## Opinion text

1
2
3

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 DALRADA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Case No.: 24-cv-2166-BTM-BLM
Wyoming corporation; DEPOSITION
11
TECHNOLOGY LTD., a United Kingdom ORDER GRANTING IN PART
12 company and wholly owned subsidiary of PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE
Dalrada Financial Corp., OF LETTER OF REQUEST FOR
13 INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL
Plaintiffs,
ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE
14
v. CONVENTION ON TAKING EVIDENCE
15 ABROAD
WILLIAM IAN MARTIN BONAR, as an

16 individual and in his official capacity; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, [ECF No. 67]
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Issuance of Letter of Request for
23 International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad
24 (“Motion”) [ECF No. 67], and Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion (“Opposition”) [ECF No.
25 70]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion to issue a letter of request is GRANTED
26 IN PART.
27
28
1 I. Factual and Procedural Background
2
On November 19, 2024, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint against
3
Defendant William Bonar and other defendants including Ian Robert Mackenzie and Samantha
4
Mackenzie (“Compl”). ECF No. 1. On July 16, 2025, District Judge William Q. Hayes dismissed
5
all defendants other than William Bonar for “lack of personal jurisdiction.” ECF No. 29. Plaintiffs
6
filed their First Amended Complaint on September 25, 2025 (“FAC”). ECF No. 48. In the FAC,
7
Plaintiffs asserted thirteen causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, tortious
8
interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with business relations,
9
misappropriation of trade secrets, and conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. ECF No. 48.
10
On February 12, 2026, Plaintiffs filed this instant Motion, seeking “authorization to obtain oral
11
deposition testimony under oath from two non-party witnesses” residing in the United Kingdom,
12
Ian Robert MacKenzie and Samantha MacKenzie, and to inspect certain documents. ECF No. 67;
13
ECF No. 67-1, at 13, 17, 19. The Court set a briefing schedule on February 13, 2026. ECF No.
14
68. Defendant timely filed his Opposition. See ECF No. 70. Plaintiffs did not file a Reply. See
15
Docket.
16
A. Plaintiffs’ Motion
17
In their letter of request, Plaintiffs state that they seek sworn testimony from Ian Robert
18
MacKenzie regarding the following topics:
19
(1) His knowledge of William Ian Martin Bonar's past and current business
20
ventures, including but not limited to any client lists and details of products
21
currently being sold by William Ian Martin Bonar.
22
(2) Communications between him and William Ian Martin Bonar regarding the
23
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff's products and the Plaintiff' employees when under William
24
Ian Martin Bonar’s supervision[.]
25 (3) His role in Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd and Semicon Solutions Ltd[.]1
26
27 1 These are allegedly Defendant’s new companies registered in the United Kingdom. See Motion,
28 at 6; Declaration of Fletcher A. Robbe in Support of Motion for Issuance of Letter of Request
1 (4) The dates William Ian Martin Bonar began operations of his new companies,
2
Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd and Semicon Solutions Ltd.
3
(5) His knowledge of the technology being used and sold by William Ian Martin
4
Bonar.
5
ECF No. 67-1, at 17.
6
Plaintiffs state that they seek sworn testimony from Samantha MacKenzie regarding the
7
following topics:
8
(1) Her knowledge of William Ian Martin Bonar’s past and current business
9
ventures, including but not limited to any client lists and details of products
10
currently being sold by William Ian Martin Bonar.
11
(2) Communications between her and William Ian Martin Bonar regarding the
12
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff's products and the Plaintiffs' employees when under William
13
Ian Martin Bonar's supervision[.]
14
(3) Her role in Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd and Semicon Solutions Ltd[.]
15
(4) The dates William Ian Martin Bonar began operations of his new companies,
16
Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd and Semicon Solutions Ltd.
17
(5) Her knowledge of the technology being used and sold by William Ian Martin
18
Bonar.
19
ECF No. 67-1, at 19.
20
Plaintiffs also request to inspect the following documents:
21
Any and all documentation and communications, email or otherwise, regarding
22
IP/technology since inception of the agreements in question to present.
23
ECF No. 67-1, at 13.
24
Plaintiffs argue that the requested information is relevant and necessary because: 1) it
25
directly relates to identifying the technology being used in Defendant’s company and whether
26
Defendant’s current clients were or are Plaintiffs’ clients; and 2) it shows whether Defendant
27
now uses Plaintiffs’ technology. Motion at 7. Plaintiffs state that the two witnesses were “former
28
1 relevant to these proceedings,” and “are now working with Defendant [] in his newly established
2
company in the UK,” and as such “possess firsthand knowledge of material events” such as
3
technology designs, products being sold by Defendant, and “documents taken from Plaintiffs’
4
company location in UK [including client lists and engineering schematics].” Motion at 7. Plaintiffs
5
also allege that Ian Robert Mackenzie is now in partnership with Defendant in a new company
6
registered in the United Kingdom, Wafer Fab Solutions, Ltd., and Plaintiffs believe and allege
7
that Plaintiffs’ technology is being used without permission or authority. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs assert
8
without explanation or support that the information sought is not unduly burdensome. Id. at 8.
9
B. Defendant’s Opposition
10
Defendant opposes both the deposition requests and the request to obtain documents.
11
First, with regard to the deposition requests, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are attempting to
12
circumvent this Court’s jurisdictional ruling and obtain pre-trial discovery, which is not permitted
13
in the United Kingdom. Opposition at 2, 10-13. Second, Defendant argues that all three
14
discovery requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome and should not be permitted under
15
federal law, the Hague Convention, or United Kingdom law. Id. at 2, 5-7, 13-14. Third,
16
Defendant contends that the requested information is equally available from Defendant and
17
therefore Plaintiff should not be allowed to seek the information from these non-parties. Id. at
18
2, 7-8. Finally, Defendant raises several additional concerns that he believes the Court should
19
consider and that support his opposition. Id. at 8-9, 11-13.
20
II. Legal Standard
21
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1781(b)(2) authorize federal courts
22
to issue letters rogatory (or letters of request) that enable a litigant in the United States to obtain
23
non-party discovery from a foreign entity. See Wadeea v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2025 WL
24
2417180, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025); Viasat, Inc. v. Space Sys./loral, Inc., 2013 WL
25
12061801, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013). A letter rogatory is a formal written request sent by
26
a court to a foreign court. Wadeea, 2025 WL 2417180, at *2. “The issuing court does not need
27
jurisdiction over the party from whom discovery is sought because it cannot compel compliance
28
1 authority to enforce the letters rogatory or not.” McCarthy v. Johnson, 640 F. Supp. 3d 69, 77
2
(D.D.C. 2022) (quoting Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 841 F. Supp. 2d
3
769, 782 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)).
4
When determining whether to exercise its discretion to issue a letter rogatory, a court
5
generally will not weigh the evidence sought from the discovery request, nor will it attempt to
6
predict whether that evidence will actually be obtained. Viasat, 2013 WL 12061801, at *2;
7
Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Accurate Air Eng'g, Inc., 2024 WL 6885484, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 12,
8
2024). Rather, a court’s decision whether to issue a letter rogatory requires an application of
9
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b) in light of the scope of discovery provided for by the Federal
10
Rules of Civil Procedure. Wadeea, 2025 WL 2417180, at *2; Viasat, 2013 WL 12061801, at *2.
11
Routinely courts issue letters rogatory where the moving party demonstrates that the discovery
12
sought is “consistent with the liberal discovery provisions of Rule 26.” Wadeea, 2025 WL
13
2417180, at *3 (quoting Viasat, 2013 WL 12061801, at *3); see Walther-Meade v. Leidos, Inc.,
14
2023 WL 3224960, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2023); see also United States v. Van Avermaet, 2024
15 WL 3835320, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2024) (“The standard for issuance of a letter rogatory is
16
the same as if the evidence were located in the United States.”).
17
Rule 26 provides that “parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter
18
that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
19
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
20
parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the
21
discovery in resolving the issues and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
22
outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The scope of discovery under the Federal
23
Rules applies equally to parties and nonparties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; Wadeea, 2025 WL
24
2417180, at *2. Generally, the party resisting discovery carries the burden to show that
25
“discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting
26
its objections.” Mahil v. Option Care Enters., Inc., 2021 WL 2550084, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 21,
27
2021); see Upper Deck Int'l B.V. v. Upper Deck Co., 2013 WL 3746086, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 12,
28
1 requested is irrelevant to the issues in the case or is overly broad, unduly burdensome,
2
unreasonable, or oppressive.”).
3
In addition to determining whether the requested discovery falls within the bounds of
4
Rule 26, courts “can also consider a five-factor comity analysis.” Wadeea, 2025 WL 2417180, at
5
*2. The five comity factors are:
6
1. The importance to the litigation of the of the documents or other information
7
requested;
8 2. The degree of specificity of the request;
3. Whether the information originated in the United States;
9 4. The availability of alternative means of securing the information; and
5. The extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine
10
important interests of the United States, or compliance with the request would
11 undermine important interests of the state where the information is located.

12
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522,
13
544 n. 28 (1987).
14
Consideration of the comity factors is not required. See id. at 539-40 (holding that
15
discovery using a letter of request pursuant to the Hague Convention is optional and that a
16
district court can “order discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); see also Scalia
17
v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 337 F.R.D. 281, 288 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (refusing to analyze
18
the comity factors and analyzing the issuance of letters rogatory solely under the Federal Rules
19
of Civil Procedure) (citing Societe Nationale, 482 U.S. at 544); see, e.g., Omnitracs, LLC v.
20
Platform Sci., Inc., 2023 WL 2626273, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2023) (granting a letter of
21
request because the discovery sought was “within the scope of Rule 26(b)” without comity
22
analysis); Upper Deck, 2013 WL 3746086, at *1 (granting a letter of request to depose and
23
request documents from third-party witnesses without comity analysis and instead analyzing
24
solely under Federal Rules).
25
III. Discussion
26
A. Depositions
27
The first issue is whether the requested information is authorized by Rule 26 and the
28
1 MacKenzie’s depositions as follows: (1) his or her knowledge of Defendant’s past and current
2
business ventures, including but not limited to any client lists and details of products currently
3
being sold by Defendant; (2) communications between him or her and Defendant regarding the
4
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff's products and the Plaintiffs' employees when under Defendant's
5
supervision; (3) his or her role in Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd. and Semicon Solutions Ltd.; (4) the
6
dates Defendant began operations of his new companies, Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd and Semicon
7
Solutions Ltd.; and (5) his or her knowledge of the technology being used and sold by Defendant.
8
ECF No. 67-1, at 17, 19. Plaintiffs provide illustrative questions for each witness. Id. at 17-20.
9
Plaintiffs declare that the MacKenzies “possess first-hand knowledge of material facts, including
10
their knowledge of Defendant William Bonar's past and current business ventures, including but
11
not limited to any client lists and details of products currently being sold by Bonar;
12
communications between these witnesses and Defendant Bonar regarding the Plaintiffs, the
13
Plaintiff’s products and the Plaintiffs' employees when under Defendant Bonar's supervision;
14
their role in Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd and Semicon Solutions Ltd; the dates Defendant Bonar
15
began operations of his new companies, Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd and Semicon Solutions Ltd;
16
and their knowledge of the technology being used and sold by Bonar.” Robbe Decl, ECF No 67-
17
1, at 2-3.
18
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ requests are overbroad but he inexplicably fails to
19
address the deposition topics set forth in Plaintiffs’ request. See Opposition. Rather, Defendant
20 focuses on the “undefined or unspecified alleged trade secrets”2 and corporate books, opines
21
that “[t]his description [of the trade secrets] does not explain why these categories of
22
information are important to the Plaintiffs and their business,” and concludes that “one is left
23

24
25
2 Defendant argues that “[t]o prove ownership of a trade secret, Plaintiffs must identify the trade
secrets and carry the burden of showing they exist,” citing a Ninth Circuit case dealing with
26 whether there was a genuine issue of material fact in the context of granting a summary
judgment motion. Opposition at 7. This argument is irrelevant to this Motion and also ignores
27 the fact that trade secrets are at issue in only two of the thirteen alleged causes of action (Count
28 VIII: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Count IX: Conspiracy to Misappropriate Trade
1 guessing as to what information Plaintiffs seek from these two individuals and whether these
2
two foreign nationals even possess this information.” Id. at 5-6. Notably, Defendant does not
3
dispute the relevancy of the actual deposition topics set forth in Plaintiffs’ request. See
4
Opposition.
5
Defendant also does not address the information set forth in Mr. Robbe’s declaration
6
regarding the knowledge of the deponents with regard to the deposition topics and does not
7
provide any evidence disputing that declaration. Id. Instead, Defendant merely surmises that
8
“there is the issue of how each of these intended third party witnesses could even provide
9
relevant information based on their roles with the company (e.g., Samantha Mackenzie’s role
10
with the foreign subsidiaries was that of a secretary and a financial administrator) and extent of
11
their knowledge of Defendant Bonar’s communications.” Id. at 12-13. Defendant’s failure to
12
address the MacKenzies’ experience and knowledge and the actual deposition topics undercuts
13
Defendant’s argument that the requests are overbroad and the proposed deponents do not have
14
sufficient knowledge. Defendant also does not dispute the proportionality of the actual
15
deposition topics. See Opposition.
16
Despite Defendant’s stated concerns about the scope of the MacKenzies’ knowledge and
17
relevance of the deposition topics or questions, Defendant identified both Ian and Samantha
18
MacKenzie as potential trial witnesses. Robbe Decl, ECF No. 67-1, at 3. Moreover, based upon
19
the briefing presented to the Court, it is undisputed that the two witnesses possess pertinent
20
knowledge of facts relevant to this litigation as they were former employees of Plaintiffs or
21
entities purchased by Plaintiffs during time periods relevant to this case and Ian MacKenzie
22
currently is in a partnership with Defendant that Plaintiffs allege uses Plaintiffs’ technology. Id.
23
at 2-3. As the party resisting discovery, Defendant fails to carry his burden to show that the
24
MacKenzies cannot provide relevant information. See Mahil, 2021 WL 2550084, at *3; Upper
25
Deck, 2013 WL 3746086, at *2.
26
The Court also finds that the deposition topics are relevant because they directly relate
27
to the allegations made by Plaintiffs. See Scherer v. FCA US, LLC, 538 F. Supp. 3d 1002, 1005
28
1 discoverable”). For example, in Count IV (Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations),
2
Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant left the company taking Plaintiff’s client list with him.” FAC at
3
18. In Count VII (Tortious Interference with Business Relations-Harassment), Plaintiffs allege
4
that Defendant “contact[ed] Plaintiffs business associates, board of directors, shareholders and
5
employees in an effort to spread th[e] false information.” FAC at 20. In Count VIII
6
(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets), Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants William, along with
7
another former employee and director opened up another company (Wafer Fab Solutions Ltd.)
8
in direct competition with Plaintiffs and are using Plaintiffs’ proprietary information without
9
consent,” and “disclosed [Plaintiffs’] trade secrets to other parties for the purpose of
10
misappropriation.” Id. at 21. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant “took with him all proprietary
11
information, including but not limited to, drawings and schematics of Plaintiffs’ EVOS machines”
12
and “is now using this proprietary information to build these machines for their own company.”
13
Id. at 22.
14
Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence sought through the proposed depositions
15
is relevant and proportional as required by Rule 26, and thus grants Plaintiffs’ motion for issuance
16
of a letter of request to depose both Ian and Samantha MacKenzie.
17
The second issue the Court may consider is the comity factors identified by the Supreme
18
Court in Societe Nationale, 482 U.S. at 544 n. 28. While the Court is not required to consider
19
these factors, the Court has and finds they also support issuing the letter of request to depose
20
Ian and Samantha MacKenzie. First, for the reasons set forth above, the requested information
21
is relevant and important to this case because it directly relates to Plaintiffs’ claims in its
22
amended complaint. Similarly, the requests are specific and not overbroad. Thus, the first and
23
second factors weigh in favor of issuing the letter of request.
24
With regard to the third factor, the Court finds that the requested information likely did
25
not originate in the United States because the MacKenzies live in the United Kingdom and the
26
27
28
1 new companies are in United Kingdom.3 As such, the third factor weighs against granting the
2
motion.
3
Next, Plaintiffs establish that there are no alternative means of securing the requested
4
information. Plaintiffs declare that the witnesses are not subject to compulsory process in the
5
United States [Robbe Decl, ¶¶ 5-6] and as noted by both parties, the Distrct Judge dismissed
6
them from this case due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant asserts “the information can
7
be obtained through less intrusive means, such as direct discovery from a defendant over whom
8
the Plaintiffs allege the court already has jurisdiction” and that Defendant can “produce the
9
documents and provide the testimony making the letters of request to Ian Rob Mackenzie and
10
Samantha Mackenzie unnecessary”. Opposition at 7. While the requests may be duplicative in
11
whole or in part, Defendant apparently has not produced the desired discovery4 and in any
12
event, Plaintiffs have the “right to verify whether [Defendant's] information (once provided) is
13

14
3 With regard to Defendant’s concern that whether the letter of request to depose the witnesses
15
would be too “investigatory” for the UK courts to execute, the Court finds that “[s]uch a decision
16 is best left to the judicial authorities in the [UK].” See Pearlstein v. BlackBerry Ltd., 332 F.R.D.
117, 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), on reconsideration in part, No. 13CV07060CMKHP, 2019 WL 5287931
17 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2019). Even if UK courts have denied letters rogatory for depositions as too
investigatory, “crafting a letter of request in compliance with the UK law is outside of the purview
18 of this Court,” and a letter of request is just a request of the foreign court, which maintains the
19 authority to enforce the letters rogatory or not. See Lantheus Med. Imaging, 841 F. Supp. 2d at
769, 782, 795 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Whether Canadian law would limit enforcement of the amended
20 letters rogatory, in whole or in part, is a determination for the Ontario Court.”). Further,
Defendant’s request for this Court to predict how the United Kingdom courts will rule on the
21 discovery request contradicts existing case law, because the Court should not “attempt to predict
22 whether that evidence will actually be obtained” when deciding whether to issue a letter
rogatory. See Viasat, 2013 WL 12061801, at *2.
23 Regarding the hardship of the two witnesses, Defendant offers nothing more than the
inconvenience faced by any witness being deposed. Defendant provides no case law from the
24 United States holding that being dismissed as defendants constitutes a “good reason” to deny
25 an otherwise permissible letter of request.

26 4 Defendant states that “[i]f Plaintiffs can manage to specify what trade secrets are at issue with
the degree of specificity required, then Defendant Bonar could be in a position to produce the
27 documents and provide the testimony making the letters of request . . . unnecessary.”
28 Opposition at 7. Defendant also states that “Plaintiffs already have served identical requests on
1 accurate.” Walther-Meade, 2023 WL 3224960, at *4–5 (citing Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v.
2
Flexicare Inc., 2020 WL 5900155, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020)). Defendant has not provided
3
any case law supporting his argument that Plaintiffs should not be allowed to depose the
4
witnesses if Defendant has testified on the same topic. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
5
fourth factor weighs in favor of granting the motion.
6
Finally, the parties do not discuss how the issuing nation's (United States’) or the receiving
7
nation's (United Kingdom’s) interests will be affected in a manner that would weigh in favor or
8
against issuing the requested letter of request to depose the MacKenzies. While Defendant
9
states that the letter of request “is intended only to target former parties to this case and works
10
against the fair interests of both the United States and the United Kingdom,” he fails to provide
11
any facts or law that supports his statement. Opposition at 10. Similarly, Defendant states that
12
“[a]llowing a U.S. court to force testimony from a UK citizen, after the U.S. court has already
13
determined it lacks jurisdiction over them, is an overreach of authority that infringes on UK
14
judicial sovereignty.” Id. Again, Defendant provides no support for this statement. Hence, the
15
fifth factor is neutral.
16
Defendant argues that the Court should consider additional factors, all of which he argues
17
mitigate against Plaintiffs’ motion. Id. at 8-13. First, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs served
18
their initial disclosures one day late and then failed to include the MacKenzies as third-party
19
witnesses and that therefore the Court should sanction Plaintiffs by denying this request. Id. at
20
8-9. Defendant acknowledges that this is not a factor identified by any court as one that should
21
be considered as part of a decision on a request for issuance of a letter rogatory. Id. The Court
22
notes that Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 37(c)(1) merely states that “the party is not allowed to use that
23
[] witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial,” not that a Court should
24
prohibit a party from conducting discovery. The Court finds that this is not a factor that should
25
be considered with regard to the pending motion and declines to consider it or impose the
26
requested sanction. Ramirez v. Zimmerman, 2019 WL 527462, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019)
27
(citing Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Novelty, Inc., 375 F. App'x 705, 713 (9th Cir. 2010) and David v.
28
1 Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2003)) (a court has great discretion in imposing
2
discovery sanctions).
3
Second, Defendant cites Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468,
4
1475, 1477 (9th Cir. 1992), for the proposition that the following two additional factors should
5
be considered and weigh against the motion: 1) “[t]he fact that all the information to be
6
disclosed (and the people who will be deposed or who will produce the documents) is located
7
in a foreign country” and 2) the likelihood of compliance by the United Kingdom courts.
8
Opposition at 8, 10. Initially, the Court notes that the identified Richmark “factors [ ] are relevant
9
in deciding whether or not foreign statutes excuse noncompliance with discovery orders” but
10
are not relevant to the issuance of letters of rogatory. Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1474-78 (analyzing
11
whether “the order compelling discovery [and sanctioning the litigant for not complying with the
12
discovery order] should be upheld in spite of the [Chinese] secrecy statute . . . prohibit[ing] [a
13
litigant] from disclosing the information the district court ordered it to provide”). In addition, in
14
deciding whether to issue a letter rogatory, a court generally should not consider whether the
15
evidence will actually be obtained and whether the receiving country will enforce the request.
16
See Pearlstein, 332 F.R.D. at 122; Lantheus Med. Imaging, 841 F. Supp. 2d at 769, 782, 795;
17
Viasat, 2013 WL 12061801, at *2. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has not
18
established that these factors are relevant to the pending motion and declines to consider them.
19
Since factors one, two, and four weigh in favor of issuing the letter of request to take the
20
depositions of Ian Robert MacKenzie and Samantha MacKenzie, factor five is neutral, and factor
21
three is against, the Court finds that the Societe Nationale comity factors also support granting
22
Plaintiffs’ motion for a letter of request to depose both individuals.
23
B. Request to Inspect Documents
24
Plaintiffs also seek a letter of request for “[a]ny and all documentation and
25
communications, email or otherwise, regarding IP/technology since inception of the agreements
26
in question to present.” ECF No. 67-1, at 13. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ request for
27
documents does not describe the documents sought with the required “reasonable particularity”
28
1 under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 34(b)(1)(A). Opposition at 6-7.5 Plaintiffs did not file a reply so they
2
did not address this argument. See Docket. In addition, neither the motion nor counsel’s
3
supporting declaration addresses the scope of the document request. See Motion; Robbe Decl,
4
ECF No. 67-1, at 2-4. Plaintiffs merely conclude that the requests are “narrowly tailored,”
5
“limited in scope and time,” and proportional to the needs of the case.” Motion at 7; Robbe
6
Decl, ECF No. 67-1, at 4.
7
Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires a party to “describe with reasonable particularity each item or
8
category of items to be inspected.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). The test is whether a reasonable
9
person would know what documents or things are called for in the request. Baird v. Leidos,
10
Inc., 2022 WL 17824005, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022). “[The] discovery rules do not allow a
11
requesting party to engage in the proverbial fishing expedition, in the hope that there might be
12
something of relevance.” Id. (quoting Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 566, 572
13
(C.D. Cal. 2012)).
14
The Court finds that the document request is not sufficiently particular and does not allow
15
a reasonable person to know what documents or things are called for by the request. The
16
request defines the relevant time frame of the requested documents as “since inception of the
17
agreements in question to present.” Plaintiffs do not define the phrase “agreements in
18
question.” Motion; ECF No. 67-1. Plaintiffs also do not define the term “regarding
19
IP/technology” and the phrase is not limited in any way to the claims and defenses at issue in
20
this litigation. In addition, the term “documentation and communications, email or otherwise”
21
is not limited to individuals, companies, or technology involved in this litigation. As such, the
22
document request is impermissibly overbroad.
23
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for issuance of a letter of request as to the
24
request to inspect documents.
25
26 5 As previously discussed, Defendant fails to address the specific document request and instead
focuses on trade secret law and applicable statutes. Opposition at 6-7. Despite this error, the
27
Court will consider Defendant’s lack of particularity argument as it applies to Plaintiffs’ actual
28 document request.
' CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion:
3 1. The letter of request will be issued with the following paragraph stricken:
4

6
7 2, It shall be the responsibility of Plaintiffs to deliver the Letter of Request to the
8 appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom.
? IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11 ||Dated: 3/12/2026

B United States Maaistrate Judae
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365661. Public record. Not legal advice.