*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Corrected Unopposed Motion for the Court to Issue Request for International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention (Letters of Request) [DE 61]. The Motion seeks for the Court to issue letters of request, also known as letters rogatory, for judicial assistance from the Ministry of Justice located in Paris, France in aid of discovery from a French individual, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention”), 28 U.S.C. § 1781, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

This case involves disputes stemming from the international purchase of a 9-year-old bay mare named Conbelleza for intended use in competitive equestrian show jumping. Plaintiffs Melissa Wight and Samantha Wight are a mother and daughter who both reside in Florida. Plaintiffs have filed this action alleging that the New York-based Defendants made fraudulent statements and misrepresentations to Plaintiffs in connection with the purchase of Conbelleza. According to the operative Amended Complaint [DE 42], the Defendants were the only ones who had direct contact with the examining veterinarian located in France and the sellers of Conbelleza.

In the Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue letters of request for international judicial assistance addressed to the Ministry of Justice, Bureau de l'entraide judiciaire en matière civile et commerciale, Paris, France, to compel Simon Delestre to testify and produce documentary evidence. According to Plaintiffs, Simon Delestre is a French citizen residing in Solgne, France. Defendants have identified Mr. Delestre as person likely to have discoverable information pertaining to this case. Further, documents obtained in discovery confirm that Mr. Delestre is one of the prior owners and sellers of Conbelleza who received proceeds from the sale of Conbelleza and was aware that Dr. Goudin examined Conbelleza prior to the sale. Documents further reveal that Dr. Goudin prepared a report following his examination of Conbelleza which states that the examination was performed at the request of Mr. Delestre.

Plaintiffs have attached a proposed letter of request with accompanying exhibits A-K to their Motion [DE 61-1]. Plaintiffs have also attached a certified French translation of the letter of request with the same accompanying exhibits [DE 61-2]. The proposed letter sets forth a clear summary of the facts in this case and the alleged relevance of the discovery sought. The proposed letter also includes a list of 24 questions that Plaintiffs intend to ask Mr. Delestre.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A letter of request, also known as a letter rogatory, is a “document issued by one court to a foreign court, requesting that the foreign court (1) take evidence from a specific person within the foreign jurisdiction or serve process on an individual or corporation within the foreign jurisdiction and (2) return the testimony or proof of service for use in a pending case.” Letter of Request, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (citing See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28).

*2 Pursuant to the Hague Convention and federal law, United States courts may “request the competent authority of another Contracting State, by means of a [l]etter of [r]equest, to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act.” Convention Adopted at the Eleventh Session of the Hague Conf. on Priv. Int'l L. Oct. 26, 1968, T.I.A.S. No. 7444 (Oct. 7, 1972), reprinted in 28 U.S.C § 1781; see also id. art. 42 (showing United States and France are Contracting States); Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b) (permitting federal courts to issue letters of request to foreign countries); Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, 795 F.3d 1255, 1273 (11th Cir. 2015) (letters of request “are the means by which a court in one country requests a court of another country to assist in the production of evidence located in the foreign country.”).

Private parties, including corporations and natural persons, may seek the issuance of letters rogatory for use in underlying lawsuits. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 248 n.1 (2004) (“[A] letter rogatory is the request by a domestic court to a foreign court to take evidence from a certain witness.”); Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Priority Healthcare Corp., 2019 WL 4687016, at *3 (N.D. Ala. June 6, 2019). Obtaining evidence includes deposing non-party witnesses in a foreign country. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b) (providing that “[a] deposition may be taken in a foreign country ... under a letter of request, whether or not captioned a “letter rogatory”).

Both the issuance and enforcement of letters rogatory “rest entirely upon the comity of courts toward each other ...” 22 C.F.R. § 92.54 (2020). Comity is “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the ... acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the ... persons who are under the protection of its laws.” Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1895). In order to “authoriz[e] a formal judicial request to a foreign authority, the Court, in the spirit of comity between nations, must be satisfied that the proposed discovery sought from a non-party is relevant, not overbroad and proportional to the needs of the case.” [DE 36]. When considering traditional notions of comity, the Supreme Court reasoned that the court is “responsib[le] ... to base its [comity] analysis on ... five factors” when considering a discovery request abroad. See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist., 482 U.S. 522, 544 (1987). The five factors are as follows: (1) the importance to the litigation of the documents or other information requested; (2) the degree of specificity of the request; (3) whether the information originated in the United States; (4) the availability of alternative means of securing the information; and (5) the extent to which noncompliance would undermine important interests of the United States, or compliance would undermine important interests of the state where the information is located. Id. at 544 nn.27-28.

In addition to the comity of courts between nations, courts apply the discovery principles contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. See Roche Diagnostics, 2019 WL 4687016, at *4. Unless otherwise limited by court order, parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim ... and proportional to the needs of the case ...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants concede the general relevance of discovery from Simon Delestre as reflected in their non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for issuance of the letters of request to aid in such discovery. After an independent review, the Court concludes that the sought-after discovery from Simon Delestre is undeniably relevant to the claims in this action; may prove material to the prosecution of this action or lead to material evidence; and is proportional to the needs of this case, given the amount of money at stake and the information sought.

*3 The information sought from Mr. Delestre pertaining to the Conbelleza transaction is directly material to Plaintiffs’ claims and damages calculations. Plaintiffs have proposed 24 narrowly tailored questions that focus squarely on Simon Delestre's knowledge about material aspects of the Conbelleza transaction that is at the center of the alleged fraud and other unlawful activity at issue in this case. With respect to the balance of interest among nations, the Court is not aware of any evidence to suggest that the interests of the French government would so outweigh those of the United States government to bar the issuance of the letters of request in this action. Nonetheless, just as a United Stats court enforcing letters rogatory issued in a foreign court may limit enforcement of the discovery device where appropriate, the French Ministry of Justice, charged with enforcing Plaintiffs’ letters rogatory, may limit enforcement of the discovery device where appropriate. Roche Diagnostics, 2019 WL 4687016, at *7 (citations omitted).

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that Plaintiffs’ Corrected Unopposed Motion for the Court to Issue Request for International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention (Letters of Request) [DE 61] is GRANTED.

In accordance with this Order, the Clerk of Court shall issue the attached Letter of Request/Commissions Rogatoires seeking the assistance of the Ministry of Justice, Bureau de l'entraide judiciaire en matière civile et commerciale, Paris, France, in obtaining the production of documents from Simon Delestre, and in taking his deposition testimony upon oral examination as a witness in this action. The Clerk of Court is further directed to return the original copies of the issued Letters Rogatory to Plaintiffs’ counsel for transmittal to the appropriate representatives for processing. It is further ordered that Defendants shall have the right to obtain copies of any documents that are produced and to participate in any discovery that the French Mnistry of Justice permits.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida, this 5th day of May, 2021.