Soto v. Unitec

Background

Juan Soto applied for an order issuing a letter rogatory, also called a letter of request, to obtain documents and deposition testimony from Eddy Suckling, whom Soto described as defendant Portamix’s general manager and a New Zealand resident. New Zealand is not a signatory to the Hague Evidence Convention. Soto therefore relied on the court’s inherent authority to issue requests for evidence abroad and on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b), which governs depositions in foreign countries. The application was unopposed, and the court resolved it without oral argument.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that federal courts may issue letters of request for evidence located abroad, guided by ordinary discovery principles such as relevance and proportionality. The court also noted that courts must closely supervise discovery to protect foreign litigants from unnecessary or unduly burdensome discovery.

The court identified several deficiencies:

1. Identity of the deponent. The application sought a deposition of Eddy Suckling but also referred to depositions of witnesses designated under Rule 30(b)(6), creating uncertainty about the person or persons sought.

2. Document requests. The proposed requests appeared directed to documents in Portamix’s possession, custody, or control, even though Soto sought them from an individual employed by Portamix. The application did not explain why the documents should be obtained from Suckling rather than Portamix.

3. Scope of discovery. The proposed letter contained 38 broadly worded requests for “any and all” documents concerning nearly every aspect of the Mega Hippo Mixer, its parts, accessories, and Portamix’s contacts with California. The requests were not limited to Soto’s incident, the particular mixer he used, or specific information related to Portamix’s challenge to personal jurisdiction. The application did not adequately show that this scope met Rule 26(b)(1)’s relevance and proportionality requirements.

4. New Zealand law. The application did not address whether the proposed letter complied with New Zealand requirements for taking testimony or obtaining documents. The court noted information suggesting that the proposed request for deposition testimony might conflict with what New Zealand law permits and expected Soto to address whether the request complied with Rule 28(b)(1).

5. Other discrepancies. The proposed letter inconsistently identified the New Zealand tribunal, included unsupported or inaccurate statements about the purpose of the evidence, gave privilege-log instructions that differed from or exceeded Rule 26(b)(5), provided inconsistent production instructions, suggested that Soto’s counsel intended to conduct a seven-hour videotaped deposition and arrange court reporters in New Zealand, and improperly referred to state evidence rules and other state laws.

Ruling

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied the application without prejudice to Soto filing a new application that addresses the deficiencies and errors identified in the order. The court vacated the hearing scheduled for December 2, 2025.