The case of the day is In re O’Keeffe (2d Cir. 2016). This is another § 1782 case in the Sheldon Adelson libel case against journalist Kate O’Keefee, who wrote that he was “foul-mouthed.” The suit was pending in Hong Kong. O’Keeffe sought leave to serve a subpoena on Adelson’s former driver, Kwame Luangisa, presumably in the hope that Luangisa could testify that Adelson was indeed foul-mouthed. The application was routine, and the court correctly affirmed the decision denying Adelson’s motion to quash.
I’ve written about several previous similar decisions in this case. What’s great about these cases is that the Adelson, the libel plaintiff, sued in Hong Kong instead of in the United States even though, presumably, he could have sued the Wall Street Journal in the United States. But through the magic of § 1782, O’Keeffe more or less had some of the same procedural advantages she would have had had the suit been brought in the United States.
The case is Salcido-Romo v. Southern Copper Corp. (D. Ariz. 2016). Alberto Salcido-Romo and others were residents of a rural community in Sonora, Mexico. An indirect subsidiary of Southern Copper Corp. operated a mine near their community. In 2014, 10 million gallons of toxic mining waste flowed into a local river, affecting Salcido-Romo and the others. They brought various amparo actions in the Mexican courts against governmental defendants and against the indirect subsidiary that operated the mine. They also planned to bring environmental tort lawsuits against the mine operator and its parent, a Southern Copper Corp. subsidiary. Salcido-Romo sought leave to take discovery under § 1782 for use in the Mexican actions. Continue reading Salcido-Romo v. Southern Copper Corp.→