1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT CHAMPION; NICK Case No.: 20-cv-2400-JO-KSC DESIDERIO; CHEYENNE HARMON; 12 HEATH HARRISON; LOGAN ORDER ON JOINT MOTION 13 KARNOW; AUSTIN POLITELLI; and FOR ISSUANCE OF DEFENDANTS’ BROC SHOEMAKER, EVIDENCE REQUEST UNDER 14 THE HAGUE CONVENTION FOR Plaintiffs, 15 DISCOVERY FROM THIRD-PARTY v. WITNESS FÉDÉRATION 16 INTERNATIONALE DE FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a 17 MOTOCYCLISME Delaware Corporation; FELD MOTOR
18 SPORTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
DIRT WURX USA, LLC, a New York 19 [Doc. No. 44] Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 20 through 100, 21 Defendants. 22 23 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Issuance of Defendants’ Evidence 24 Request Under the Hague Convention for Discovery from Third-Party Witness (the “Joint 25 Motion” or “Jt. Mot.”). Doc. No. 44. Therein, the parties request that this Court issue a 26 letter of request for discovery (the “Evidence Request”) from third-party witness 27 Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (“FIM”) in Switzerland. Id. at 2. The Court 28 heard argument from the parties on June 1, 2022, which was recorded. Having considered 1 the record before it, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, and for the reasons 2 stated below, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiffs in this action are motocross riders who were allegedly injured while 5 participating in a February 2, 2019 motocross event (the “Supercross Event”). See 6 generally Doc. No. 20. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, who are the organizers of the event 7 or were responsible for preparing and maintaining the racetrack, negligently applied caustic 8 lime to the dirt racetrack and that plaintiffs were injured when they came into contact with 9 the lime mixture during the race. See generally id.; see also Jt. Mot. at 2. The parties 10 represent that FIM was the “sanctioning body” that sanctioned the Supercross Event. Id. 11 As such, “defendants anticipate that FIM is in the possession of records relevant to 12 [plaintiffs’] claims . . . including racer profiles, documents identifying the dirt bikes entered 13 in races, and medical releases and proofs of physical examinations required to participate 14 in races.” Id. Defendants1 assert that these documents will bear on plaintiff’s claims of 15 physical injury and property damage, and defendants’ defenses to those claims. Id. The 16 parties therefore request the Court’s assistance in obtaining this discovery by issuing an 17 Evidence Request under the Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence 18 Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters2 to be submitted to the appropriate authorities in 19 Switzerland, where FIM is headquartered. Id. 20 /// 21 /// 22
23 24 1 Although styled as a Joint Motion and signed by both plaintiffs’ counsel and defense counsel, it appears that the evidence is sought by defendants. See Jt. Mot. at 7. 25
2 Opened for signature June 1, 1970. See 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. 7444, 847 U.N.T.S. 231 26 (hereafter referred to as the “Hague Convention”). The text of the Hague Convention is 27 available at the website for the Hague Conference on Private International Law [hereafter “HCCH website”]. See https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised- 28 1 II. REQUESTED DISCOVERY 2 Attached to the Joint Motion is the proposed Evidence Request and Exhibit A, which 3 specifies the discovery defendants seek from FIM. See Doc. No. 44-2 at 7. 4 Defendants’ proposed Evidence Request was refined during and based on the 5 discussion with the Court during the June 1, 2022 hearing. As such, and as discussed in 6 more detail below, the Court will approve defendants’ request for the following documents 7 related to plaintiffs Scott Champion, Nick Desiderio, Cheyenne Harmon, Austin Politelli 8 and Broc Shoemaker (the “individual plaintiff(s)”):3 9 1. The entire racer profile files for each individual plaintiff who participated in the Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series between 10 2017 and 2021; 11 2. The entire membership file for each individual plaintiff; 12 3. The license application and all supporting qualifications submitted in support 13 thereof for each individual plaintiff; 14 4. All entry forms, registrations, and related documents, including but not limited 15 to, certifications such as anti-doping, completed by or on behalf of each 16 individual plaintiff for the Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series between 2017 and 2021; 17 5. Documents sufficient to show how each individual plaintiff placed in any 18 Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race 19 between 2017 and 2021; 20 6. All documents related to any insurance or proof of insurance provided by or on 21 behalf of each individual plaintiff who participated in any Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race between 2017 and 22 2021; 23 7. Documents sufficient to identify each dirt bike or motorcycle (for example, tech 24 stickers, frame numbers, etc.) utilized by each individual plaintiff in any 25 26 27 3 Based on counsel’s representations during and after the hearing, the Court understands 28 1 Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race between 2017 and 2021; 2 3 8. All releases, waivers, and consents signed by or on behalf of each individual plaintiff related to any Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World 4 Championship series race between 2017 and 2021; and 5 9. All medical releases, clearance, physical or other proofs of physical 6 examinations provided for or on behalf of each individual plaintiff related to any Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race 7 between 2017 and 2021. 8 10. All documents that reference any claim made by the individual plaintiffs related 9 to injuries or damages attributed to the addition of lime to the dirt track in 10 connection with the February 2, 2019 Supercross Event at Petco Park in San Diego, California. 11 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 A. Use of the Hague Convention Procedures Is Appropriate 14 The Hague Convention “prescribes certain procedures by which a judicial authority 15 in one contracting state may request evidence located in another contracting state.” Société 16 Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. Of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 17 524 (1987) [hereafter “Aérospatiale”]. Among those procedures is the issuance of “a 18 formal written request sent by a [domestic] court to a foreign court for the purpose of 19 obtaining evidence . . . in a pending action.” Scalia v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse 20 Union, 337 F.R.D. 281, 287 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 21 Specifically, signatory States, including the United States and Switzerland, agree that in 22 “civil or commercial matters a judicial authority of a Contracting State may, in accordance 23 with the provisions of the law of that State, request the competent authority of another 24 Contracting State, by means of a Letter of Request, to obtain evidence, or to perform some 25 other judicial act,” and further agree to receive and act upon such written requests for 26 evidence from foreign courts. See Hague Convention, art. 1 & 2. A court may employ the 27 Hague Convention procedures whether evidence is sought from parties or nonparties. See 28 Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. at 540-41. 1 The issuance of an evidence request is a matter within both the authority and the 2 discretion of the federal court. See Scalia, 337 F.R.D. at 288; accord 28 U.S.C. § 1781 3 (b)(2) (referencing the authority of a “tribunal in the United States” to transmit a written 4 request for evidence to a foreign tribunal). Before issuing a letter of request, the Court must 5 analyze the specific facts and consider the foreign jurisdiction’s interests to determine if 6 the Hague Convention procedures are appropriate and will be effective. See Aérospatiale, 7 482 U.S. at 544 (requiring the Court to conduct a “particularized” comity analysis). Factors 8 relevant to this analysis include the importance of the information requested to the 9 litigation, whether the request is sufficiently specific, whether the information originated 10 in the United States, whether the evidence is available from another source, and how the 11 issuing or receiving nations’ interests will be affected. Id. at 544 n.28. The Supreme Court 12 directs that the Court must “exercise special vigilance to protect foreign litigants” from 13 “unnecessary [or] unduly burdensome” discovery. Id. at 546. 14 The Court finds that on balance, these factors weigh in favor of issuing the Evidence 15 Request. Subject to some limitations discussed below, the documents sought are plainly 16 relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses as they bear on plaintiff’s physical condition, 17 and the condition of their equipment, before and after the Supercross Event. The Evidence 18 Request is sufficiently specific and, as defendants correctly note, FIM is outside the 19 subpoena power of this Court. See Jt. Mot. at 2. On the issue of whether the documents are 20 available from another source, the Joint Motion is silent.4 However, at the hearing, 21 defendants’ counsel proffered that they had exhausted their efforts to obtain the documents 22 from both plaintiffs and domestic organizations that may be in possession of the 23 documents. Defendants’ counsel acknowledged that FIM may not have responsive 24 documents, but seeks to confirm whether any such documents exist, and, if they do, to 25 obtain copies of them. Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that all responsive documents in 26 27 4 Defendants have apparently misapprehended this factor and discuss whether the 28 1 plaintiffs’ possession have already been produced to defendants and that, given the nature 2 of the documents at issue, it is likely that plaintiffs did not retain copies of them. 3 Accordingly, the Court is persuaded that the documents are not reasonably available from 4 another source. 5 B. The Requested Discovery Does Not Fall Within Any of Switzerland’s Reservations to the Hague Convention 6 7 Absent an indication that the requested discovery is prohibited by the law of the 8 foreign jurisdiction the Court “analyzes the propriety of the requests under the Federal 9 Rules [of Civil Procedure].” See Scalia, 337 F.R.D. at 288. The parties’ submission does 10 not address whether the requested discovery is contrary to Swiss law. However, Article 23 11 of the Hague Convention provides that Contracting States may decline to execute certain 12 requests for pretrial discovery. See Hague Convention, art. 23. Switzerland has not 13 prohibited pretrial discovery altogether, but has “declare[d]” that it will not execute letters 14 of request for pretrial discovery if: 15 a) the request has no direct and necessary link with the proceedings in 16 question; or 17 b) a person is required to indicate what documents relating to the case are or 18 were in his/her possession or keeping or at his/her disposal; or 19 c) a person is required to produce documents other than those mentioned in the request for legal assistance, which are probably in his/her possession 20 or keeping or at his/her disposal; or 21 d) interests worthy of protection of the concerned persons are endangered. 22 23 See Declaration/Reservation/Notification, https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/ 24 conventions/status-table/notifications/?csid=561&disp=resdn (last visited June 1, 2022). 25 As explained below, the requested documents directly relate to the parties’ claims 26 and defenses, and the Evidence Request does not require FIM to identify additional case- 27 related documents it may have in its possession or to produce documents other than those 28 specifically identified therein. Furthermore, plaintiffs have no objection to FIM producing 1 the requested evidence. See Jt. Mot. at 2; Doc. No. 44-1 at 2. In sum, the Court finds that 2 production of the requested documents is not prohibited because Switzerland is a signatory 3 to the Hague Convention and none of its reservations are implicated by defendants’ 4 Evidence Request.5 5 C. Whether the Requested Discovery Is Within the Scope of Rule 26 6 The Court turns to whether the documents defendants seek are within the permissible 7 scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Successor Agency to 8 the Former Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Swagelok Co., No. 17-cv-00308-WHO, 9 2020 WL 7042860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020) (noting that “[l]ike all discovery, 10 motions for letters of request are subject to the standards of Rule 26(b)”). That scope is 11 broad, but “not unlimited.” Cabell v. Zorro Prods., 294 F.R.D. 604, 607 (W.D. Wash. 12 2013). Rule 26 provides that “parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 13 matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the 14 case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 15 controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 16 importance of the discovery in resolving the issues and whether the burden or expense of 17 the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26 18 requires parties to tailor their requests to the needs of the case, and where they fail to do 19 so, the Court “must limit” the discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). 20 21
22 23 5 Defendants cite Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992), for additional factors the Court may consider in its comity analysis. Richmark 24 examined a Chinese company’s noncompliance with a discovery order that the company 25 contended violated Chinese secrecy laws. Id. at 1474. The Ninth Circuit stated that in issuing the discovery order, the trial court could consider whether compliance with the 26 order would subject the responding party to penalties in the foreign jurisdiction, or, 27 relatedly, whether the order was effectively unenforceable in the foreign jurisdiction. Id. at 1475-76. However, since the proposed Evidence Request is not prohibited by Swiss law, 28 1 The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules applies equally to parties and 2 nonparties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, advisory committee notes to 1991 amendment, 3 subdivision (a) (“The non-party witness is subject to the same scope of discovery under 4 this rule as that person would be as a party to whom a request is addressed pursuant to Rule 5 34.”). However, the Court notes that if FIM were subject to a Rule 45 subpoena, defendants 6 would be obligated to avoid unduly burdensome or expensive discovery requests to it. See 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d). This protection is echoed in the Supreme Court’s directive that 8 district courts “supervise” requests for evidence from foreign litigants “particularly 9 closely” to protect responding parties from abuse and undue burden. Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. 10 at 546. The Court has “ʻbroad discretion’” to “ʻpermit or deny discovery.’” Hallett v. 11 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 12 The Court finds that the requested evidence is plainly relevant to the parties’ claims 13 and defenses, as it will tend to show plaintiffs’ physical condition, and the condition of 14 their racing equipment, before and after the Supercross Event. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 15 However, as discussed at the June 1, 2022 hearing, many of the original document requests 16 were deemed impermissibly overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. See 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (providing that the Court “must limit” discovery that is 18 unreasonably cumulative, duplicative or burdensome). Specifically, the Court was 19 concerned that a request for documents for seven individuals spanning a seven-year period 20 was not necessary to the prosecution or defense of the litigation and had the potential to be 21 burdensome to FIM. See Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. at 546 (cautioning courts to curb 22 “unnecessary” discovery to foreign nonparty litigants). Therefore, the appropriate time 23 period has been revised to include discovery for two years preceding and the two years 24 following the Supercross Event. Furthermore, the parties will not burden FIM with 25 searching for and producing documents for the two plaintiffs who intend to dismiss their 26 claims. 27 Relatedly, the Court expressed a concern that requests for “all documents” was 28 overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. See Painters Joint Comm. v. Emp. 1 || Painters Trust Health & Welfare Fund, No. 2:10-cv-01385-JCM-PAL, 2011 WL 4549232, 2 *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2011) (citation omitted) (subpoena for “any and all documents” 3 || for a five-year period of time involving several different individuals and entities is facially 4 overbroad). Counsel therefore eliminated one such request, and the Court in its discretion 5 || has modified other requests to require only “documents sufficient to show” matters that are 6 subject of defendants’ discovery requests. The Court also consolidated two requests 7 were largely duplicative of one another. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(1). 8 In sum, the Court finds that subject to the modifications described above and at the 9 1, 2022 hearing, the requested discovery is within the scope of Rule 26. The Joint 10 || Motion is accordingly GRANTED and the Evidence Request, as modified, will issue. 11 ORDER 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Joint Motion for Issuance of Defendants’ Evidence 13 ||Request Under the Hague Convention for Discovery from Third-Party Witness [Doc. No. 14 ||44] is GRANTED. The Court hereby authorizes a request for discovery from FIM 15 consistent with the terms of this Order and as reflected in the attached Evidence Request. 16 It shall be the responsibility of the parties to deliver the Evidence Request to the appropriate 17 || authorities in Switzerland. A signed copy of the Evidence Request bearing the Court’s seal 18 |/is available to be picked up from the Clerk of the Court, whose address and business hours 19 |/are available on the Court’s website. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: June 2, 2022 A /; ) 22 WV GP “EEE 3 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SCOTT CHAMPION; NICK DESIDERIO; CASE NO.: 20-cv-02400 CHEYENNE HARMON; HEATH HARRISON; LOGAN KARNOW; AUSTIN REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL POLITELLI; and BROC SHOEMAKER; JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON Plaintiffs, THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR v. COMMERCIAL MATTERS
FELD ENTERTAINMENT; INC., FELD MOTOR SPORTS, INC.; DIRT WURX USA LLC; and DOES 1 through 100
Defendants.
IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT:
United States District Court for the Southern District of California Honorable Karen S. Crawford James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse 333 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 USA
CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF THE RECEIVING STATE:
Tribunal Cantonal Division Entraide judiciaire Palais de justice de l'Hermitage Route du Signal 8 1014 Lausanne SWITZERLAND
In conformity with Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (hereinafter referred to as “Hague Convention No. 20”), the undersigned applicant has the honor and judicial authority to submit this request on behalf of Defendants in the above-entitled action. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California, by and through the Honorable Karen S. Crawford, presents its compliments to the judicial authorities of Vaud, Switzerland and requests international judicial assistance to obtain evidence to be used in a civil proceeding before this Court in this action. In accordance with Article 9 of Hague Convention No. 20, this Court requests the assistance of the Courts of Vaud, Switzerland to compel the below-named entity to submit the requested evidence (described in Exhibit A) to an appropriately designated authority for Vaud, Switzerland for subsequent return to this court for examination in this case. PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS’ REPRESENTATIVES Scott Champion Samuel G. Lynn, Esq. Nick Desiderio GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS Cheyenne Harmon 655 W. Broadway Heath Harrison Suite 1700 Logan Karnow Austin Politelli San Diego, CA 92101 Broc Shoemaker USA c/o Counsel Telephone: (619) 237-3490 Samuel G. Lynn, Esq. GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS Brittany Cohen, Esq. 655 W. Broadway Kathy Rabii, Esq. Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 RC LEGAL GROUP USA 101 West Broadway, Suite 1170 San Diego, CA 92101 USA Telephone: (858) 800-2458
DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS’ REPRESENTATIVES Feld Entertainment, Inc. Vaughn A. Crawford, Esq. Feld Motor Sports, Inc. David P. Hansen, Esq. Dirt Wurx USA LLC dhansen@swlaw.com c/o Counsel David P. Hansen, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626-7689 Costa Mesa, California 92626-7689 Telephone: (714) 427.7000 USA Douglas D. Cullins, Esq. Chanel P. Araujo, Esq. CULLINS & GRANDY LLP Moulton Park Place 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Telephone: (949) 454-2500 REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THIS COURT IN RELATION TO THIS REQUEST:
It is requested that should contact or correspondence be required in relation to this request, the following individual is appointed in this matter for that purpose: David P. Hansen, Esq. dhansen@swlaw.com SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626-7689 Telephone: (714) 427.7515
ENTITY FROM WHOM EVIDENCE IS REQUESTED:
Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme 11, Route de Suisse 1295 Mies Switzerland Telephone: +41 (0) 22 950 95 00 Facsimile: +41 (0) 22 950 95 01
RELEVANCE-CONNECTION TO REQUEST
This Court respectfully requests that the Courts of Vaud, Switzerland appoint an appropriate judicial authority in Vaud, Switzerland to preside over this request and compel the above-named entity to provide the evidence described in Exhibit A, which is relevant to the Plaintiff’s case. Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme shall be permitted to have counsel present. Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme (“FIM”) is a business entity, legally operating and doing business in Vaud, Switzerland, and in possession of the requested evidence and information. SUBJECT MATTER AND RELATIVITY OF THIS REQUEST: Plaintiffs have filed a claim in this court against defendants for injuries they sustained while participating in a February 2, 2019 Supercross Event (the "Supercross Event"). At this event, the Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent when they applied a dirt, sand, and lime mixture to the race track which, when it became wet during the Supercross Event, allegedly caused the plaintiffs to suffer injuries and damages. FIM is a global governing/sanctioning body of motorcycle racing. FIM was the entity that sanctioned the Monster Energy AMA Supercross — FIM World Championship series between 2014 and 2021, which includes the above Supercross Event. In order to participate, the racers (including Plaintiffs) are required to fill out license applications, entry forms, and related documents, including medical releases and waivers, proofs of physical examinations, and
documents related to each dirt bike that was utilized during the Championship series. These documents contain information about each Plaintiffs condition and performance, which are relevant to the Plaintiffs’ injury claims. In view of the foregoing, it is therefore requested, in the interest of justice, that the appropriate judicial authority of Vaud, Switzerland issue an order, in accordance with Articles 9 and 10 of Hague Convention No. 20 and the laws and procedures of the Courts of Vaud, Switzerland, summoning FIM to produce an appropriate representative to provide the requested evidence (described below) to the appropriate authority for Vaud, Switzerland, to be ultimately returned to the this Court for use at trial in this case. REQUESTED EVIDENCE:
1. The entire racer profile files for each individual identified below that participated in the Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series between 2017 and 2021; 2. The entire membership file for each individual identified below; 3. The license application and all supporting qualifications submitted in support thereof for each individual identified below; 4. All entry forms, registrations, and related documents, including but not limited to, certifications such as anti-doping, completed by or on behalf of each individual identified below for the Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series between 2017 and 2021; 5. Documents sufficient to show how each individual identified below placed in any Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race between 2017 and 2021;
6. All documents related to any insurance or proof of insurance provided by or on behalf of each individual identified below that participated in any Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race between 2017 and 2021; 7. Documents sufficient to identify each dirt bike or motorcycle (for example, tech stickers, frame numbers, etc.) utilized by each individual identified below in any Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race between 2017 and 2021; 8. All releases, waivers, and consents signed by or on behalf of each individual identified below related to any Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race between 2017 and 2021; and
9. All medical releases, clearance, physical or other proofs of physical examinations provided for or on behalf of each individual identified below related to any Monster Energy AMA Supercross – FIM World Championship series race between 2017 and 2021. 10. All documents that reference any claim made by the individuals identified below related to injuries or damages attributed to the addition of lime to the dirt track in connection with the February 2, 2019 Supercross Event at Petco Park in San Diego, California. INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS/RACERS:
Scott Champion Nick Desiderio Cheyenne Harmon Austin Politelli Broc Shoemaker
SPECIFIC REQUESTS: 1. It is requested that should any portion of this request be denied, on legal grounds, that such denial not affect the remainder of this request. In accordance with Article 13 of Hague Convention No. 20, it is further requested that the above-designated representative, and this Court, be immediately informed of any such refusal and the associated legal grounds. 2. It is requested that the judicial authorities of Vaud, Switzerland issue an order for the requested documents (attached as Exhibit A) to be produced as quickly as possible. 3. In accordance with Article 9 of Hague Convention No. 20, it is requested that the appropriate authority in Vaud, Switzerland provide to this Court, as soon as convenient, all information regarding decisions made relating to the acquisition of evidence from FIM. 4. It is requested that any documents and evidence produced be properly sealed and authenticated by the appropriate authority for, and in accordance with the laws of, Vaud, Switzerland and returned to this Court for examination and use in this case. Any costs associated with acquisition, production, authentication or return of this evidence shall be the responsibility of Defendants’ counsel in this matter and said costs shall be reimbursed upon request. 5. It is requested that responsive evidence, if any, be provided to the requesting party within 30 days of receipt of this letter. When required, the below-signed judicial authority shall provide reciprocal assistance, such as requested herein, to the appropriate judicial authorities of Vaud, Switzerland. WITNESS, the Honorable Karen S. Crawford, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, this Zu df day of □ like 2022. Nig WY Honorable KAren S. Crawford Magistrate4udge United States District Court Southern District of California James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse 333 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 USA [seal of the court]
Request for International Judicial Assistance (Hague Evidence Convention) Page 7 of 7 Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme - Switzerland