In re Application of Sandra Silberstein Tenenbaum No. MC 18-0143 UA (ASx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed July 11, 2019 Counsel Brian Alan Dan Angelini, Brian Angelini Law Offices, Fred J. Kumetz, Fred Kumetz Law Offices, Beverly Hills, CA, Michael L. Maguire, Law Offices of Michael L. Maguire and Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, Roberta J. Burnette, Burnette Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, for In re Application of Sandra Silberstein Tenenbaum. Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider, Miami, FL, pro se Sagar, Alka, United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings (In Chambers): Order (1) Granting In Part Petitioner's Motion To Modify Court's November 19, 2018 Order (Dkt. No. 27); and (2) Directing the Clerk to Correct Respondent's Address A. Motion to Modify *1 On November 19, 2018, the Court granted-in-part Petitioner Sandra Silberstein Tenenbaum's Ex Parte application to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (“November 2018 Order”). (Dkt. No. 8). The Court narrowed Petitioner's requests, permitting the issuance of a subpoena to Respondent Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider to testify at a deposition, and to produce documents regarding assets held or income received in the United States within the past three years. (Id.). On March 7, 2019, the Court denied Respondent's motion to quash the subpoena, finding that (1) the Court has personal jurisdiction over Respondent, and (2) Respondent can be required to submit to a deposition in Los Angeles. (Dkt. No. 14). Nevertheless, the parties agreed at the hearing on the motion to quash to take Respondent's deposition in Long Island, New York, where he conducts or has business interests, and regularly travels. (Id.). On May 14, 2019, Respondent produced documents and appeared for his deposition. (Dkt. No. 27 at 4). Petitioner now moves the Court to modify its November 2018 Order to increase the scope of discovery of Respondent's finances and to allow subpoenas to be issued to various third parties (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 27). Petitioner's counsel raised these issues in a meet and confer letter to Respondent's counsel, prior to their withdrawing as Respondent's attorneys.[1] (Dkt. No. 27-1 (Kumetz Decl.) at ¶ 11 & Ex. 5). Respondent's counsel did not respond. (Dkt. No. 27 at 1). Nor has Respondent, who is now proceeding pro se, responded to the Motion. The Court finds the Motion appropriate for decision without a hearing, and the hearing has been vacated. (Dkt. No. 33). Having considered the Motion and the applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS-IN-PART the Motion. Petitioner is a party in a divorce proceeding in Huixquilucan, Mexico. (Dkt. No. 8 at 1). The divorce case is pending before the Tenth Court of Family Matters, Sandra Silberstein Tenenbaum v. Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider, Case No. 437/2016. (Id.). In the divorce proceeding, the parties are disputing the amount of alimony Respondent should be obligated to pay on behalf of Petitioner and their three children. Petitioner asserts that Respondent “is fraudulently hiding his true net worth from the [Mexican] Court in order to reduce the amount of alimony he is ordered to pay.” (Id.). Petitioner claims that Respondent is hiding assets in the United States, which the Mexican court has no ability to force Respondent to disclose. (Id. at 2). Petitioner has now demonstrated that the Mexican court, where her divorce proceeding is pending, will find the requested financial information useful in the divorce proceedings. See In re Roebers, 2012 WL 2862122, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2012) (“Ms. Roebers provided authorities showing the prior receptivity of Irish courts to discovery acquired with the assistance of American courts.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) (“The order [to give testimony or produce information] may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal ... and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court.”); Intel Corp. v. AMD, 542 U.S. 241, 246 (2004) (discovery ordered pursuant to § 1782 must be for use in the foreign tribunal). Indeed, the Mexican court has now described the specific information it needs to make its findings: *2 1. Confirmation that Quadlogic Controls Corporation operates commercially in Mexico through Quadlogic México, S.A. de C.V. and/or Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider. 2. Description of the terms of the commercial relationship it has with Quadlogic México, S.A. de C.V. and/or Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider. 3. Description and specification of its total sales, including those amounts that the company has received in Mexico, either directly or indirectly, through Quadlogic México, S.A. de C.V. and/or Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider. 4. Report on the compensation and/or commission on total sales made in Mexico that Quadlogic México, S.A. de C.V. and/or Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider may have received. 5. Report on whether it has knowledge of, (and if so, the amount), of the total ordinary and extraordinary compensation received by Mister Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider for his work and/or role in the sale of products and/or commercial operations carried out in Mexico by its representative. 6. Duration of the contractual relation between Quadlogic México, S.A. de C.V. and/or Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider. 7. Presentation of accounting and/or commercial documentation in support of its responses to the above. (Dkt. No. 27-10 (Gordillo Decl.) at ¶ 5 & Ex. C) (English translation). The Mexican Court has also requested: 8. To report and specify the status maintained by account 7013815962 at Charles Schwab, PNC Bank, N.A. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the name of Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider, as well as the balances, movements and historical statements of account thereof. 9. To report and specify the status maintained by account 39363137 at Charles Schwab, PNC Bank, N.A. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the name of Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider as well as the balances, movements and historical statements of account thereof. 10. To confirm and specify whether Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider maintains any other savings, deposit, investment account and/or any other financial instrument. 11. In case this is affirmative, please send all statements of account generated as of the date of the opening of the account and up to the present date. 12. Describe and specify the seniority of the accounts all of which Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider is the title holder. 13. Describe any trust which is subject to the accounts of Ricardo Grossman Goldscheider, the time of its release, and the sums to which it amounts. (Dkt. No. 11-5 at 39–41) (English translation). Accordingly, the Court authorizes Petitioner to conduct discovery consistent with these requests made by the Mexican Court. Specifically, Petitioner is authorized to: 1. Issue a subpoena duces tecum to Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., seeking information related to Respondent's Charles Schwab accounts, including (a) all documents reflecting to whom money wires were sent and from whom wires were received for the past eight years; and (b) account records on all accounts Respondent is or was an owner, beneficiary, or was authorized to sign, for the past eight years. 2. Issue a subpoena duces tecum to Quadlogic U.S. seeking documents for the past eight years relating to (a) business transactions with Respondent, including sales documents, invoices, delivery and shipping documents; (b) emails exchanged with Respondent or anyone associated with Respondent; (c) payments made to Respondent or his assignees, in cash or in kind, either directly or indirectly; and (d) money received from Respondent or his assignees, either directly or indirectly. However, Petitioner's request to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Quadlogic U.S. (Dkt. No. 27 at 9) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65 (in exercising its wide discretion to grant § 1782 discovery, the district court can limit a request that is “unduly intrusive or burdensome”). If after completing her written third-party discovery, Petitioner can demonstrate a compelling need for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Quadlogic U.S., the Court will revisit its ruling. *3 3. Issue a subpoena duces tecum to Citibank, N.A. regarding all accounts on which Respondent is authorized to sign, requesting copies of all documents for the past eight years that reflect to whom money wires were sent and from whom money wires were received. 4. Issue subpoenas duces tecum to financial institutions disclosed in the Charles Schwab and Citibank money wiring records, limited to whether Respondent is an owner, beneficiary, or signatory on those accounts and whether any other money was wired into or out of those accounts from Respondent, Quadlogic Controls Corp. U.S., Quadlogic Mexico, S.A. de C.V, or Integracion. 5. Issue a subpoena duces tecum to Rosa E. Schechter relating to (a) the ownership of the real property located at 1925 Brickell Ave, No. 1606D, Miami, Florida, (b) any other real property in which Respondent has an ownership interest, (c) any trust in which Respondent is a beneficiary. However, Petitioner's request to take the deposition of Rosa E. Schechter is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65 (in exercising its wide discretion to grant § 1782 discovery, the district court can limit a request that is “unduly intrusive or burdensome”). If after completing her written third-party discovery, Petitioner can demonstrate a compelling need for taking the deposition of Rosa E. Schechter, the Court will revisit its ruling. 6. Seek discovery from Respondent to produce all credit card statements and credit card charge slips made in the United States for the past eight years. 7. Issue subpoenas duces tecum to the credit card companies and clearing houses disclosed by Respondent, including Credit One Bank, Capital One, HSBC, and American Express, requesting copies of credit card statements and credit card charges made in the United States for the past eight years. 8. Seek additional oral discovery from Respondent related to his business relationship with companies in the United States and the receipt of money, from whatever source, received in the United States. Such oral discovery is not limited in temporal scope. B. Correcting Respondent's Address On July 8, 2019, mail directed to the pro se Respondent at the address listed on the Court's docket was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 34). Based on Petitioner's inquiries and Respondent's deposition testimony, it appears that Respondent's correct address should be: 1925 Brickell Ave, No. 1606D, Miami, FL 33129. (Dkt. No. 27 at 11 & Kumitz Decl. Ex. 6). Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to correct the docket to reflect this address. Nevertheless, Respondent is admonished that pursuant to the Court's local rules, “[a] party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any.” Local Rule 41-6. C. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART Petitioner's Motion to Modify the Court's November 19, 2018 Order. The Court's November 19, 2018 Order is modified as described above. Respondent is ordered to comply with the discovery requests in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court and to keep the Court apprised of his current address, telephone number, and email address. *4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 0 : 00 Initials of Preparer AF Footnotes [1] On June 17, 2019, the Court granted Respondent's counsels' requests to withdraw. (Dkt. Nos. 23–26). Respondent is now proceeding pro se.