Optrics Inc v. Barracuda Networks Inc

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter concerning Optrics, Inc.’s request for letters rogatory to the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, Canada. Letters rogatory are formal requests asking a court in another jurisdiction to assist with obtaining evidence. Optrics sought them for document requests that Barracuda Networks, Inc. had served on Optrics. Optrics argued that the documents might be confidential under Canadian law and that Canada did not recognize orders from foreign tribunals requiring their production.

Legal standard

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Under that approach, letters rogatory are available but are not automatically required when discovery involves a foreign company that is a party to the case. Courts consider the importance of the discovery, the specificity of the requests, where the information originated, alternative ways to obtain it, the interests of the United States and the foreign country, the hardship of production, and whether enforcement by either country is likely to achieve compliance with its rules.

Analysis

The court acknowledged that the information appeared to originate in Canada, which favored Optrics’s request. But it found that the other factors weighed against requiring letters rogatory. Optrics had chosen to bring the lawsuit in the United States and was therefore subject to the court’s procedural rules. This case involved discovery from a party, not a foreign nonparty.

The court also noted that Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte had already determined that the requests were relevant and had repeatedly ordered Optrics to produce the documents. Optrics had not shown that the requests were irrelevant, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome, and there was no evidence that the documents were cumulative.

The court found that the United States had a strong interest because the case alleged violations of United States trademark laws. It stated that foreign confidentiality laws do not remove an American court’s power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence, even if production might violate those laws. Optrics also had not established that production under the court’s rules would violate Canadian law. The court found that the existing protective order addressed the concerns about sensitive information and that personally identifying information, such as credit-card numbers or home billing addresses, could be redacted.

Disposition

The court found that the relevant factors favored allowing discovery to proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It denied Optrics’s request for letters rogatory and ordered Optrics to produce all remaining responsive documents to Barracuda’s First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents by November 7, 2019. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.