Juan Soto v. CS Unitec, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-06624
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JUAN SOTO, Case No. 24-cv-06624-NW (VKD)

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 10 v. PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY 11 CS UNITEC, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 38 Defendants. 12

13 14 Plaintiff Juan Soto applies to the Court for an order issuing a “letter rogatory” or “letter of 15 request”1 for assistance in obtaining documents and deposition testimony from an individual, Eddy 16 Suckling, who is a resident of New Zealand. Dkt. No. 38; Dkt. No. 38-1. The Court received no 17 opposition to Mr. Soto’s application, and the deadline for filing an opposition has passed. See 18 Civil L.R. 7-3(a). The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See 19 Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 20 As New Zealand is not a signatory to the Hague Evidence Convention,2 Mr. Soto invokes 21 this Court’s “inherent authority” to issues letters of request as well as its authority under Rule 22 28(b), which governs the taking of depositions in a foreign country. Dkt. No. 38 at 3-4. Federal 23 courts have inherent authority to issue letters of request to obtain evidence located abroad. United 24

25 1 For convenience, this order uses the term “letter of request.”

26 2 Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, T.I.A.S. No. 7444 (Oct. 7, 1972); see https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=82 27 (status of signatories, last visited November 21, 2025). 1 States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958); accord United States v. Reagan, 453 F.2d 2 165, 172 (6th Cir. 1971); Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 795 F.3d 1255, 1273 (11th 3 Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1781(b)(2) (provision authorizing State Department to receive 4 and transmit letters rogatory “does not preclude . . . the transmittal of a letter rogatory or request 5 directly from a tribunal in the United States to the foreign or international tribunal . . .”). The 6 exercise of that authority is guided by general principles of discovery, including considerations of 7 relevance and proportionality. See, e.g., Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Glob., Inc., No. 05-cv-05124 8 JCS, 2007 WL 1880369, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), (c). However, in 9 addition to those general principles, federal courts “should exercise special vigilance to protect 10 foreign litigants from the danger that unnecessary, or unduly burdensome, discovery may place 11 them in a disadvantageous position,” and “must supervise pretrial proceedings particularly closely 12 to prevent discovery abuses.” Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. 13 Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 546 (1987). 14 Although Mr. Soto’s application is not opposed, the Court denies the application without 15 prejudice. The application and the proposed letter seeking discovery contain several deficiencies 16 and/or errors, discussed below, that must be addressed before the Court can properly consider an 17 application for issuance of a letter of request to a New Zealand tribunal. 18 1. Identity of deponent. On its face, the application seeks issuance of a letter of request 19 for the deposition of Eddy Suckling. Mr. Soto explains that Mr. Suckling is the “general 20 manager”3 of defendant Portamix who resides in New Zealand. Dkt. No. 38 at 5. However, the 21 letter of request also refers to a notice for deposition of “Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses”. Dkt. No. 38-1 22 at 9. 23 2. Document requests. While a letter of request may seek documents located abroad in 24 addition to testimony, see Largan Precision Co. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 21-cv-09138-JSW 25 3 The Court assumes that Mr. Suckling is not an “officer, director, or managing agent of” of 26 defendant Portamix, and that Mr. Soto seeks issuance of a letter of request because he cannot obtain Mr. Suckling’s deposition by means of a deposition notice under Rule 30(b)(1). See 27 Rijhwani v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 13-cv-05881 LB, 2015 WL 848554, at *3 (N.D. 1 (DMR), 2024 WL 4200562, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2024), Mr. Soto’s proposed document 2 requests appear to be directed to documents in defendant Portamix’s possession, custody, or 3 control. See Dkt. No. 38 at 5 (referring to documents requested from defendant Portamix), at 6 4 (referring to documents Portamix identified in its initial disclosures). It is not clear why Mr. Soto 5 seeks these documents from an individual in defendant’s employ, rather than from Portamix itself. 6 3. Scope of discovery. Mr. Soto describes the discovery he seeks from Mr. Suckling as 7 “specific to the causes of action asserted in his Complaint and the allegations against Portamix.” 8 Dkt. No. 38 at 5. However, Mr. Soto’s proposed letter of request includes 38 document requests, 9 all of which are broadly framed as seeking “any and all” documents concerning every aspect of the 10 design, development, maintenance, operation, sale, rental, promotion, marketing, and distribution 11 of the Mega Hippo Mixer, its parts, and accessories, as well as all documents concerning 12 Portamix’s contacts with California. The requests are not limited to the incident involving Mr. 13 Soto or the particular mixer he used, or to any specific information pertaining to Portamix’s 14 challenge to personal jurisdiction. Mr. Soto’s application does not adequately address how the 15 very broad scope of discovery he seeks comports with the relevance and proportionality 16 requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). See HDMI Licensing Adm'r, Inc. v. Availink, Inc., No. 22-cv- 17 06947-EKL (PHK), 2025 WL 799036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2025); see id. at *9 (denying 18 request for documents on proportionality grounds). 19 4. New Zealand law regarding taking testimony and producing documents. Apart from 20 alerting the Court that New Zealand is not a signatory to the Hague Evidence Convention, the 21 application is silent regarding whether the proposed letter of request comports with any 22 requirements under New Zealand for providing testimony or obtaining documents. In these 23 circumstances, the Court expects an applicant to affirmatively address such matters, particularly 24 where the Department of State website provides some information suggesting Mr. Soto’s proposed 25 letter of request for deposition testimony may conflict with what New Zealand domestic law 26 permits. See https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/Judicial-Assistance-Country- 27 Information/NewZealand0.html (Taking Voluntary Depositions of Willing Witnesses). The 1 described in proposed letter of request (Dkt. No. 38-1 at 13), complies with Rule 28(b)(1). 2 5. Other discrepancies. The proposed letter of request includes several errors and 3 discrepancies, including: (a) inconsistent references to the specific New Zealand tribunal to which 4 |} the letter is directed; (b) unsupported and inaccurate assertions about the “purpose of evidence 5 sought”; (c) instructions for preparing a privilege log that exceed or differ from the requirements 6 of Rule 26(b)(5); (d) inconsistent instructions about the location and manner of production of 7 || responsive documents; (e) instructions for the taking of testimony that suggest plaintiff's counsel 8 intends to take a 7-hour videotaped deposition and will arrange for court reporting services in New 9 || Zealand; and (f) improper references to state rules of evidence and other state laws. 10 Accordingly, the Court denies the application without prejudice to Mr. Soto filing a new 11 application that addresses the deficiencies and errors identified in this order. The hearing set for 12 December 2, 2025 is vacated. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 21, 2025

Virginia K. DeMarchi 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28