Opinion
2:23-mc-00137-WLH-AJR
03-22-2024
Oksana Kiritchenko v. Citicorp North America, Inc., et al.
PRESENT: HONORABLE A. JOEL RICHLIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE SECOND APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1782 (DKT. 13) SHOULD NOT BE DENIED AS TO CREDIT ONE AND UNION BANK
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
Applicant Oksana Kiritchenko (“Ms. Kiritchenko”) is a U.S. citizen involved in judicial proceedings pending in Bulgaria (the “Bulgarian Proceedings”). On September 29, 2023 Ms. Kiritchenko filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order Permitting Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) (the “Original Application”). (Dkt. 1.) In support of the Original Application, Ms. Kiritchenko filed her own declarations as well as the declaration of Mr. Daniel Bojckov, a Bulgarian translator. (Dkt. Nos. 1-2 & 8, 1-3.) On December 18, 2023, Ms. Kiritchenko's application was granted and the case was closed. (Dkts. 11-12.) Ms. Kiritchenko now seeks, through a new ex parte application (the “Second Application ”), an order reopening the action and authorizing further discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (Dkt. 13.) In support of the new application, Ms. Kiritchenko filed the declaration of her counsel Aleksandr A. Volkov. (Dkt. 13-1.)
Case No. 20224520105152 (commonly titled as No. 5152/2022), titled Oksana Kiritchenko v. Bojidar Goranov; Case No. 20224520105217 (commonly titled as No. 5217/2022); Case No. 20224520105640 (commonly titled as No. 5640/2022), titled Oksana Kiritchenko v. Bojidar Goranov.
Ms. Kiritchenko's Second Application seeks an Order permitting discovery in the form of additional subpoenas for production of documents to six newly discovered financial institutions for use in the Bulgarian Proceedings: (1) Charles Schwab Corporation; (2) Merrick Bank; (3) Credit One Bank; (4) Capital One Bank USA, N.A.; (5) Union Bank; and (6) Synchrony Bank. (Dkt. 13 at 1.)
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) provides in relevant part:
The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to . . . produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal ....The order may be made . . . upon the application of any interested person .... The order may prescribe the practice and procedure . . . for . . producing the document or other thing.
Section 1782, as amended, “was designed to facilitate the conduct of litigation in foreign tribunals, improve international cooperation in litigation, and put the United States into the leadership position among world nations in this respect” by providing “equitable and efficacious discovery procedures” for obtaining evidence for use in foreign proceedings. In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188, 191-92, 195 (3d Cir. 1998); see also In re Letter Rogatory from Local Court of Ludwigsburg, Fed. Republic of Germany in Matter of Smith, 154 F.R.D. 196, 199 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (“The history of Section 1782 reveals Congress' intent to strengthen the power of district courts to respond to requests for international assistance.”); In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1218 (9th Cir. 1976) (same); Application of Malev Hungarian Airlines, 964 F.2d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 1992) (explaining that the “twin aims” of Section 1782 are to provide “efficient means of assistance to participants in international litigation in our federal courts” and to encourage “foreign countries by example to provide similar means of assistance to our courts”).
“The prima facie showing mandated by the statute is only that the application be made (1) ‘by a foreign or international tribunal' or ‘any interested person,' (2) that it be ‘for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,' and (3) that the person or entity from whom the discovery is sought be a resident of or be found in the district in which the application is filed.” In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d at 193 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) and italics added); see also Application of Esses, 101 F.33d 873, 875 (2d Cir. 1996) (same).
Upon review of the Second Application for compliance with the three requirements of a prima facie case, it appears that the Second Application is missing admissible evidence with regard to Credit One Bank and Union Bank establishing that they reside or can be found in the Central District of California. Regarding Union Bank and Credit One Bank, Ms. Kiritchenko simply includes the following language in her application without citation:
The Union Bank maintained several locations in the Los Angeles county area, including by way of example the one located at 475 Foothill Blvd., Suite L, La Canada Flintridge, California, and one named “the Union Bank Plaza” located at 445 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California.
The Credit One Bank, maintained a location in the Los Angeles county area at 10550 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 201, Mission Hills, California.(Dkt. 13 at 5.)
Again, these assertions are made without any citation to supporting evidence such as a declaration or documentation. Upon initial review of publicly available information subject to judicial notice, Credit One Bank does not seem to have any location in the Central District and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. Further, it appears that U.S. Bank acquired Union Bank in 2022.
See https://www.creditonebank.com/corporate/about-us.
See https://usbank.com/about-us-bank/company-blog/article-library/us-bancorp-completes-acquisition-of-union-bank.html.
Accordingly, the Court orders Ms. Kiritchenko to show cause within ten (10) days of the date of this Order why the Application should not be denied as to Credit One Bank and Union Bank. Ms. Kiritchenko can satisfy this Order by submitting admissible evidence in the form of a declaration or documents establishing that Credit One Bank and/or Union Bank reside or can be found within the Central District of California. If Ms. Kiritchenko believes that such evidence has already been provided, then she can satisfy this Order by filing a response which directs the Court's attention to such admissible evidence. If Ms. Kirtichenko no longer wishes to pursue discovery from Credit One Bank and/or Union Bank, then she can satisfy this Order by filing a response which withdraws the Second Application as to that entity. The Court will defer any further evaluation of the Second Application until after Ms. Kiritchenko responds.
IT IS SO ORDERED.