United States District Court, D. Connecticut
In re Application of LUIS JAVIER MARTINEZ SAMPEDRO for an Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Compel Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding
RULING ON PETITIONER'S RENEWED MOTION FOR
PERMISSION TO PROVIDE § 1782 DISCOVERY TO THE SPANISH
REGULATOR (DOC. NO. 198) AND RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOC. NO. 206)
M. SPECTOR, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Court presumes familiarity with its prior rulings, as well as
the facts and procedural history of this case. On April 8,
2019, Petitioner, Luis Javier Martinez Sampedro, filed his
original Motion for Permission to Provide § 1782
Discovery to the Spanish Regulator (Doc. No. 165) and, in a
Ruling dated May 20, 2019, the undersigned denied the motion
(Doc. No. 181). On May 28, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion
for Clarification of the May 20, 2019 Ruling. (Doc. No. 182).
Following telephonic oral argument (see Doc. Nos.
189, 192, 196, and 197), the undersigned construed the Motion
for Clarification as a Motion for Reconsideration, granted
reconsideration, and vacated the May 20, 2019 Ruling
(see Doc. No. 194). The undersigned ordered further
that, in light of “new evidence that existed at the
time that [the Court] denied Petitioner's [original]
Motion for Permission to Provide 1782 Discovery to the
Spanish Regulator[, ]” the parties were to submit new
briefing on the Motion for Permission and address following
(1) whether the filing of a formal complaint with the CNMV
meets the requirement that a proceeding be “within
reasonable contemplation[, ]” see In re Furstenberg
Fin. SA, No. 18-MC-44 (JGK), 2018 WL 3392882, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018);
(2) if so, what discovery is appropriate; and (3) any other
issues that the parties think would aid the Court in reaching
a decision on the Revised Motion for Permission.
(Doc. No. 194). Petitioner submitted this Renewed Motion for
Permission to Provide § 1782 Discovery to the Spanish
Regulator on July 2, 2019 (Doc. No. 198). On July 16, 2019,
Respondents filed their oppositions to Petitioner's
Motion, as well as their own Motion for Protective
Order. (Doc. Nos. 206, 207, and 210). Petitioner
filed his reply on July 19, 2019. (Doc. No. 211).
reasons articulated below, Petitioner's Motion to Provide
§ 1782 Discovery to the Spanish Regulator (Doc. No. 198)
is GRANTED, Petitioner's Motion to De-Designate is DENIED
as moot, Petitioner's Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 203) is
GRANTED, and Respondents' Motion for Protective Order
(Doc. No. 206) is DENIED.
support of his Renewed Motion for Permission, Petitioner
makes three arguments. First, Petitioner argues that the
Court should grant the motion pursuant to the “special
provision” of the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. No.
108) that governs requests to use the § 1782 discovery
in related proceedings. (Doc. No. 199 at 9-19). Second, and
in the alternative, Petitioner argues that the Court should
grant his Motion pursuant to its “inherent
authority” to modify the existing protective order.
(Doc. No. 199 at 19-23). Third, Petitioner argues that, if
the Court grants the Motion for Permission, the Stipulated
Protective Order would remain in effect, as modified, and
Petitioner would not require any additional or new discovery.
(Doc. No. 199 at 23-24). In opposition to Petitioner's
motion, and in support of their Motion for Protective Order
(Doc. No. 206), Respondents argue that there is no
“proceeding” within reasonable contemplation in
which Petitioner can use the discovery (Doc. No. 207 at
11-21), and, in the alternative, that there exists good cause
to prohibit disclosure to the CNMV and issue a separate
protective order (Doc. No. 207 at 21-25).
January 2, 2019, the Court granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Protective Order and issued the parties'
Stipulated Protective Order. (See Doc. No. 108). The
Stipulated Protective Order provides, inter alia,
that, if the producing party agrees, the receiving party may
use the discovery obtained in this proceeding “in
another litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding arising
out of or related to the facts and matters at issue in either
the Spanish Litigation or the ICC Arbitration[.]” (Doc.
No. 108 at 1). However, “[i]f the producing party does
not agree, then the receiving party may request permission
from the Court for such use.” (Doc. No. 108 at 1).
“In that event, ” the parties agreed that
the provisions of this [stipulated] protective order shall
not be considered in the Court's resolution of the
question whether such further use should be permitted; and
neither the existence of this [stipulated] protective order,
nor any part thereof, nor the parties' agreement thereto
shall affect either (1) which party bears the burden of
showing whether use in additional proceedings should be
permitted or restricted, or (2) what that burden is.
(Doc. No. 108 at 1). Thus, the Court cannot consider the
provisions of the Stipulated Protective Order in resolving
this motion and, as a result, must determine (1) whether a
proceeding is ongoing or “within reasonable
contemplation, ” and (2) whether, even if there is a
related proceeding, there is good cause to prevent disclosure
of Respondents' documents to the CNMV in connection with
WHETHER THERE EXISTS A PROCEEDING IN WHICH PETITIONER CAN
USE THE § 1782 DISCOVERY
Petitioner notes, “the first question for the Court is
whether Petitioner's [M]otion seeks to use or disclose
discovery in connection with a ‘proceeding.'”
(Doc. No. 199 at 9). Petitioner argues that he “has
already filed a complaint with the CNMV, . . . the CNMV has
stated that it is investigating the allegations, ” and
“the first stage of the two-stage regulatory process
has already been initiated[, ]” creating a
‘“proceeding' in the CNMV.” (Doc. No.
199 at 10-11). Respondents maintain that there is no
proceeding within reasonable contemplation because “(i)
the CNMV is not presently conducting an investigation and is
unlikely ever to do so; and ...