*1 On April 6, 2020, Defendants filed an Unopposed Motion for a Letter Rogatory Seeking Judicial Assistance in Compelling Lisi Aerospace Canada Corp. to Give Testimony and Produce Documents (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 436).[1] Defendants' proposed letter rogatory seeks to compel one or more representatives of Lisi Aerospace Canada Corp. (“Lisi Canada”) to testify at a deposition and produce certain specified documents.[2] (Motion at 2 & Ex. 1). Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion. (Dkt. Nos. 438, 439). The Court finds the Motion appropriate for resolution without a hearing. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for a Letter Rogatory is GRANTED.

A. Discussion

A letter rogatory is “a formal request from a court in which an action is pending[ ] to a foreign court to perform some judicial act.” 22 C.F.R. § 92.54; see also Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 n.1 (2004) (defining “letter rogatory” as “the request by a domestic court to a foreign court to take evidence from a certain witness”); 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2083 (3d ed.) (“Letters rogatory are formal communications in writing sent by a court in which an action is pending to a court or judge of a foreign country requesting that the testimony of a witness resident within the jurisdiction of the latter court may be formally taken there under its direction and transmitted to the first court for use in the pending action.”). The Federal Rules provide for the taking of depositions within foreign countries through letters rogatory. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1) (“A deposition may be taken in a foreign country ... under a letter of request, whether or not captioned a ‘letter rogatory’ ....”). In accordance with Rule 28(b)(1)(B), “[t]he Department of State has power, directly, or through suitable channels ... to receive a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a tribunal in the United States, to transmit it to the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it is addressed, and to receive and return it after execution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1781(a). The proper method for compelling the production of documents and obtaining deposition testimony in Canada for use in a United States action is to proceed by means of a letter rogatory. The Canada Evidence Act specifically provides that a court outside of Canada may serve letters rogatory upon a Canadian court. R.S.C.1985, c. C-5, s. 46 (a Canadian court maintains the discretion to “command the attendance of [a] party or witness for the purpose of being examined” when “any court or tribunal outside Canada, before which any civil, commercial or criminal matter is pending, is desirous of obtaining the testimony in relation to that matter of a party or witness within the jurisdiction of the first mentioned court”); accord Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Global, Inc., No. C-05-05124 JCS, 2007 WL 1880369, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2007); Goldberg v. Dufour, No. 16-21301, 2020 WL 373206, at *4 (D. Vt. Jan. 23, 2020); see also Allianz Sigorta, A.S. v. Ameritech Indus., Inc., No. 15-CV-1665, 2016 WL 1127705, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2016) (finding that “under the applicable Canadian law, a Canadian court can order [discovery] from a non–party if so requested by a letter rogatory”).

*2 Courts have “inherent power to issue Letters Rogatory,” United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958), and “[w]hether to issue such a letter is a matter of discretion for the court,” Valcor Eng'g Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., No. SACV 16-0909, 2017 WL 10440084, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2017) (citation omitted). “When determining whether to exercise its discretion, a court will generally not weigh the evidence sought from the discovery request nor will it attempt to predict whether that information will actually be obtained.” Asis Internet Servs., 2007 WL 1880369, at *3; accord Valcor Eng'g Corp., 2017 WL 10440084, at *1. Instead, a court applies “Rule 28(b) in light of the scope of discovery provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Asis Internet Servs., 2007 WL 1880369, at *3 (collecting cases); see Valcor Eng'g Corp., 2017 WL 10440084, at *1 (“Thus, in deciding whether to issue a letter rogatory, a Court decides whether the discovery sought is permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). Under Rule 26, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Defendants request the issuance of a letter rogatory because Plaintiff has “asserted the same trade secrets at issue in the instant case against Lisi Canada in a litigation that is pending in the Superior Court of Québec.” (Motion at 1). Indeed, Plaintiff has acknowledged that its claims against Lisi Canada “derive from the same common nucleus of operative fact, are based on the same product and trade secrets, and rely on many of the same documents and witnesses” as those against Briles Aerospace. (Dkt. No. 436-1 (“Hefazi Decl.”) ¶ 2). Thus, Defendants seek discovery from Lisi Canada that are relevant to liability and damages in this case, including documents and information demonstrating that

(Motion at 1–2). The Court finds that the requested discovery is narrowly tailored and relevant to Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Further, the requested discovery is not unduly burdensome. Defendants have attempted to obtain the requested information from other sources and through other means without success. (Motion at 2). For example, Defendants served a subpoena on Lisi Aerospace North America, but it indicated that the requested information is in the possession, custody or control of Lisi Canada, not Lisi North America. (Hefazi Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8). Some of the requested information has already been produced in the Canadian litigation. (Motion at 7). Finally, “because in Québec the costs of production and expenses of the witness, who is a stranger to the action, should be reimbursed, the Briles Defendants have sent $1,480 USD to local counsel's trust account with instructions that this constitutes a bond given the Canadian Court closure amid COVID-19, with the further understanding that the Briles Defendants will be liable for any reimbursable costs beyond this bond as well.” (Id. at 11). Thus, the requested discovery does not run afoul of the federal rules, which provides that courts “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if the discovery sought “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Here, there is no alternative source of the information sought.

B. Conclusion

*3 Defendants' Motion for a Letter Rogatory Seeking Judicial Assistance in Compelling Lisi Aerospace Canada Corp. to Give Testimony and Produce Documents [436] is GRANTED. Defendants shall lodge with the Court two original copies of the Letter Rogatory in substantially the same form as Exhibit 1 to the Motion. (Dkt. No. 436-9). The Letter Rogatory must be formatted and allow for the signatures, authentications, and verifications pursuant to the Central District of California's filing procedures. See Letter Rogatory / Letter of Request for Judicial Assistance, available at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/filing-procedures/letters-rogatory. Once the Letter Rogatory has been signed and sealed, it will be returned to Defendants for appropriate service on the United States Department of State or the appropriate judicial authority in Québec, Canada. The hearing set for May 19, 2020, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Defendants first filed their Motion on April 6, 2020. (Dkt. No. 435). However, this version of the Motion inadvertently included an under-seal document. (Dkt. No. 437). On April 10, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' “Motion to Withdraw Incorrectly Filed Document: Docket No. 435.” (Dkt. Nos. 437, 440). Docket Entry No. 435 and the supporting documents at Docket Entry Nos. 435-1 to 435-10 will remain sealed.

Nonexpert discovery closed on June 28, 2019. (Dkt. No. 118). On August 13, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order. (Dkt. No. 229). On September 12, 2019, the Court continued the September 13, 2019 deadline for the parties to notify the Court regarding new suggested discovery and trial dates. (Dkt. No. 276).