Case 16-1004, Document 72-1, 05/26/2016, 1780452, Page1 of 3 16-1004-cv In re Application of Kate O Keeffe UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation summary order ). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of May, two thousand sixteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. IN RE APPLICATION OF KATE O KEEFFE TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE TAKING OF A DEPOSITION AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR USE IN A FOREIGN PROCEEDING KATE O KEEFE, Petitioner-Appellee, 16-1004-cv SHELDON G. ADELSON, v. Movant-Appellant. FOR PETITIONER-APPELLEE: Laura Rose Handman, Constance M. Pendleton, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC; Eric J. Feder, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY. 1
Case 16-1004, Document 72-1, 05/26/2016, 1780452, Page2 of 3 FOR MOVANT-APPELLANT: Eric R. Breslin, Duane Morris LLP, Newark, NJ. Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Deborah A. Batts, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Movant-appellant Sheldon G. Adelson ( Adelson ) appeals from an April 1, 2016 order of the District Court denying his motion to quash a subpoena served by petitioner-appellee Kate O Keeffe ( O Keeffe ) upon Adelson s former driver, Kwame Luangisa ( Luangisa ), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782. We assume the parties familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Adelson has sued O Keeffe in Hong Kong for defamation. His claim involves an article that O Keeffe co-authored for the Wall Street Journal, which described Adelson as foul-mouthed. 1 O Keeffe s defense in that lawsuit depends, in part, on her contention that the term foul-mouthed is true in substance and fact. App. 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). To facilitate that defense, O Keeffe seeks to subpoena Luangisa for evidence of Adelson s use of foul language. Because O Keeffe seeks discovery pursuant to 1782, her application must meet three statutory requirements: (1) that the person from whom discovery is sought reside (or be found) in the district of the district court to which the application is made, (2) that the discovery be for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, and (3) that the application be made by a foreign or international tribunal or any interested person. Application of Esses, 101 F.3d 873, 875 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Once these requirements are met, we review a district court s decision to grant or deny a 1782 application or, as in this case, to grant or deny a motion to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to such an application for abuse of discretion. Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76, 79 80 (2d Cir. 2012). Adelson does not dispute that O Keeffe s application satisfies the statutory requirements of 1782. Instead, he argues only that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to quash. We reject that argument as meritless. The Supreme Court has provided several factors that a district court should consider in exercising its discretion under 1782: (1) whether the person from whom discovery is sought is a 1 See Kate O Keeffe & Alexandra Berzon, Fired Executive Rankles Casino Business, Wall St. J. (Dec. 5, 2012), http://www.wsj.com/articles/sb10001424127887324784404578142952070044598 (describing Adelson as a scrappy, foul-mouthed billionaire from working-class Dorchester, Mass. ). 2
Case 16-1004, Document 72-1, 05/26/2016, 1780452, Page3 of 3 participant in the foreign proceeding ; (2) the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance ; (3) whether the request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States ; and (4) whether the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 65 (2004). The District Court carefully considered the four Intel factors, and it acted well within its discretion in determining that they weighed in favor of denying the motion to quash. First, Luangisa is not a party to the Hong Kong litigation. Second, Adelson has not offered evidence that Hong Kong courts are unreceptive to U.S. judicial assistance. Cf. Application of Esses, 101 F.3d 873, 876 77 (2d Cir. 1996) (suggesting the receptivity of Hong Kong courts to U.S. judicial assistance). At most, Adelson has suggested that O Keeffe seeks evidence which would not be discoverable in Hong Kong. But as Adelson acknowledges, our precedents expressly forbid district courts from considering the discoverability of evidence in a foreign proceeding when ruling on a 1782 application. See Brandi-Dohrn, 673 F.3d at 81 83. Similarly, the mere fact that the discovery sought here might not be obtainable under Hong Kong law does not, by itself, suggest that O Keeffe s application is an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. See Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291, 303 (2d Cir. 2015). Finally, Adelson does not argue that the subpoena is unduly burdensome to Luangisa, who has not objected to it. We also reject Adelson s suggestion that it was impermissible or improper for O Keeffe to bring her application ex parte. [I]t is neither uncommon nor improper for district courts to grant applications made pursuant to 1782 ex parte. Gushlak v. Gushlak, 486 F. App x 215, 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (collecting cases). CONCLUSION We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Adelson on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the District Court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 3
Case 16-1004, Document 72-2, 05/26/2016, 1780452, Page1 of 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 ROBERT A. KATZMANN CHIEF JUDGE Date: May 26, 2016 Docket #: 16-1004cv Short Title: In Re:Application of Kate O' CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT DC Docket #: 16-mc-8 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Batts BILL OF COSTS INSTRUCTIONS The requirements for filing a bill of costs are set forth in FRAP 39. A form for filing a bill of costs is on the Court's website. The bill of costs must: * be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment; * be verified; * be served on all adversaries; * not include charges for postage, delivery, service, overtime and the filers edits; * identify the number of copies which comprise the printer's unit; * include the printer's bills, which must state the minimum charge per printer's unit for a page, a cover, foot lines by the line, and an index and table of cases by the page; * state only the number of necessary copies inserted in enclosed form; * state actual costs at rates not higher than those generally charged for printing services in New York, New York; excessive charges are subject to reduction; * be filed via CM/ECF or if counsel is exempted with the original and two copies.
Case 16-1004, Document 72-3, 05/26/2016, 1780452, Page1 of 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 ROBERT A. KATZMANN CHIEF JUDGE Date: May 26, 2016 Docket #: 16-1004cv Short Title: In Re:Application of Kate O' CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT DC Docket #: 16-mc-8 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Batts VERIFIED ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS Counsel for respectfully submits, pursuant to FRAP 39 (c) the within bill of costs and requests the Clerk to prepare an itemized statement of costs taxed against the and in favor of for insertion in the mandate. Docketing Fee Costs of printing appendix (necessary copies ) Costs of printing brief (necessary copies ) Costs of printing reply brief (necessary copies ) (VERIFICATION HERE) Signature