Walther-Meade v. Leidos, Inc.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] Case No.: 22cv1777-JAH(BLM) 11 GEORGE WALTHER-MEADE, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT AND CROSS13 v. COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST 14 LEIDOS, INC.; DOES 1-10, inclusive, UNDER THE HAGUE CONVENTION 15 Defendants. [ECF NO. 15] [18] 19 Currently before the Court is Defendant/Cross-Complainant Leidos, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) 20 Motion for the Issuance of Letters of Request Under the Hague Evidence Convention to Permit 21 Production of Evidence from Citibanamex and Banorte in Mexico [ECF No. 15 (“Motion”)], 22 Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s (“Plaintiff”) Opposition to Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s Motion 23 for the Issuance of Letters of Request Under the Hague Convention to Permit Production of 24 Evidence from Citibanamex and Banorte in Mexico [ECF No. 18 (“Opposition”)], and Defendant’s 25 Reply in Support of its Motion for the Issuance of Letters of Request Under the Hague Evidence 26 [ECF No. 19 (“Reply”)]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to issue letters of 27 request is GRANTED IN PART. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff file a complaint in San Diego County Superior Court 3 commencing the above-entitled matter. See ECF No. 1-4, Exhibit A to Defendant’s Notice of 4 Removal of Civil Action to United States District Court. Plaintiff alleges Defendant wrongfully 5 terminated his employment after conducting an improper investigation, intentionally divested 6 stock bonuses and employment benefits, and racially discriminated against Plaintiff because of 7 his Mexican heritage. Id. On November 14, 2022, Defendant removed this action to this Court. 8 ECF No. 1. Defendant filed its answer and brought counterclaims against Plaintiff alleging, in 9 part, that Plaintiff engaged in an embezzlement scheme with nonparty Juan Gonzalez Ruiz 10 (“Ruiz”). ECF No. 6. As part of its counterclaim, Defendant alleged that the embezzled money 11 was deposited into bank accounts that Ruiz controlled and Plaintiff could access. Id. 12 On January 1, 2023, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulation Discovery and Other 13 Pre-Trial Proceedings, which opened discovery. ECF No. 11. 14 On February 21, 2023, Defendant served a subpoena on Banamex USA, a Citibanamex 15 entity located in the United States. Motion at 2. According to Defendant, it has not received a 16 response.1 Id. 17 On April 7, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion. See ECF No. 15. The Court set a 18 briefing schedule on April 10, 2023. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff timely filed his opposition and 19 Defendant timely filed its reply. ECF Nos. 18 & 19. 20 Because many of Defendant’s exhibits were in Spanish, on April 21, 2023, the Court 21 ordered Defendant to file English translations of the previously lodged Spanish exhibits. ECF 22 No. 21. Defendant lodged a Supplemental Declaration of Ryan T. Chuman in Support of Leidos’s 23 Motion for the Issuance of Letters of Request Under the Hague Convention to Permit Production 24 of Evidence from Citibanamex and Banorte in Mexico [ECF No. 22 (“Chuman Supp. Decl.”)] on 25 April 25, 2023, which included translated versions of Defendant’s previously lodged exhibits. [27] 1 Defendant indicates that Banamex USA is defunct and states that it “does not believe the 1 The following day, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Failure to Comply with Court Order Requiring 2 Defendant Leidos Cure Defects in Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory, and Leidos’s Admitted 3 Grounds to Stay the Case Warrant Refusal to Issue Letters Rogatory [ECF No. 23 (“Notice”)], 4 requesting that the Court deny Defendant’s motion for failure to comply with the Court’s April 5 21, 2023 Order because some exhibits remained in Spanish and Defendant did not provide 6 certified translations.2 Notice at 2. On April 27, 2023, Defendant filed a letter in response to 7 Plaintiff’s Notice.3 ECF No. 24. 8 While the instant motion was pending before the Court, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay 9 Civil Action Pending Resolution of Criminal Proceedings [ECF No. 17 (“Motion to Stay”)]. Plaintiff 10 seeks to stay this civil action following Plaintiff’s February 9, 2023 grand jury indictment for wire 11 fraud, money laundering, aiding and abetting, and criminal forfeiture. ECF No. 17-1 at 4. On 12 April 21, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition of Motion to Stay [ECF No. 10 (“Notice 13 of Non-Opposition”)], agreeing that the pending criminal charges weighed in favor of staying 14 the civil action. ECF No. 10. Defendant also requested that the Court rule on the instant motion. 15 Notice of Non-Opposition at 1. 16 LEGAL STANDARD 17 A letter rogatory, or letter of request, is “a formal request from a court in which an action 18 is pending to a foreign court to perform some judicial act.” Viasat, Inc. v. Space Sys./Loral, LLC, [19] 2014 WL 12577593 , at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 30, 2014). Such judicial act can include allowing 20 requests for the production of documents. Crocs, Inc. v. La Modish Boutique, 2021 WL 5933147 , 21 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021). “Courts have inherent authority to issue letters rogatory.” 22 Desirous Parties Unlimited Inc. v. Right Connection Inc., 2023 WL 245871 , at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. [23] 24 2 While the Court did not consider the Notice in reaching its decision, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s pleading is factually inaccurate, as Exhibits K and O include the English translations. 25 In addition, Plaintiff does not provide any law establishing that certified translations are required or that the translations Defendant provided are inaccurate. As such, the Court finds Defendant’s [26] translations acceptable. 27 3 The Court also did not consider Defendant’s letter in reaching its decision. The Court notes that Defendant’s letter does not comply with Civil Local Rule 5.1, which requires all documents 1 18, 2023) (citing United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958)). In exercising its 2 discretion, the court generally will not weigh the evidence sought nor predict whether a party 3 actually will obtain the evidence. Desirous Parties Unlimited Inc., 2023 WL 245871 , at *1 (citing 4 Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 2012 WL 1808849 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2012)). 5 Discovery through the use of letters rogatory “is consistent with the liberal discovery 6 provisions of Rule 26.” Desirous Parties Unlimited Inc., 2023 WL 245871 , at *1 (quoting Viasat, 7 Inc., 2013 WL 12061801 , at *3). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits parties to obtain 8 discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense 9 and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 10 Routinely courts issue letters rogatory where the moving party demonstrates that the 11 evidence sought is relevant pursuant to Rule 26. See Valcor Eng’g Corp. v. Parker Hannifin 12 Corp., 2017 WL 10440084 , at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2017) (“Thus, in deciding whether to issue a 13 letter rogatory, a Court decides whether the discovery sought is permissible under the Federal 14 Rules of Civil Procedure.”); see also Desirous Parties Unlimited Inc., 2023 WL 245871 , at *2 15 (granting motion for issuance of letters rogatory where the “requested information [was] 16 narrowly tailored to obtain relevant information that was necessary”); SPS Techs., LLC v. Briles 17 Aerospace, Inc., 2020 WL 12740646 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2020) (same). As such, a party 18 opposing the issuance of letters rogatory must show good cause for why the court should deny 19 issuing the letters rogatory. Parsons Xtreme Golf LLC v. Taylor Made Golf Co., Inc., 2018 WL 20 3954414, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 17, 2018) (“Generally, a court should grant such a request absent 21 a showing by the opposing party demonstrating good cause to deny the motion.”). 22 DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS 23 Defendant seeks to request the same information from each financial institution through 24 the letters rogatory: 25 1. Any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS, including, but not limited to, statements, correspondence, regarding any bank account that 26 PLAINTIFF could legally access or is or was previously the owner, account holder, authorized user, or beneficiary. [27] 2. Any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS, including, but not limited to, statements and correspondence, regarding any bank account that 1 JUAN GONZALEZ RUIZ could legally access or is or was previously the owner, account holder, authorized user, or beneficiary. 2 ECF No. 22-4, Exhibit M to Chuman Supp. Decl. (“Exhibit M”), at 3; ECF No. 22-8, Exhibit Q to 3 Chuman Supp. Decl. (“Exhibit Q”), at 3. 4 DEFENDANT’S MOTION 5 Defendant argues that the requested information is material and directly relevant to its 6 counterclaims against Plaintiff. Motion at 5. Defendant states that its records demonstrate that 7 some amount of the $3.2 million it alleges Plaintiff embezzled was transferred from Defendant 8 to accounts held by Ruiz at Citibanamex and Banorte. Id. The basis for Defendant’s position 9 includes “text messages between [Plaintiff] and [Ruiz] regarding the transfer of money from a 10 United States bank account held in [Ruiz’s] name to an account held in [Ruiz’s] name at 11 Banorte.” Id. at 6. In addition, Defendant notes that evidence demonstrates Plaintiff’s sister-in12 law worked at Banorte and helped Plaintiff and Mr. Ruiz transfer funds. Id. 13 Further, Defendant indicates there is no other way to obtain the requested information. 14 Id. They served a subpoena on Banamex USA pursuant to Rule 45 but have not received a 15 response, and, to Defendant’s knowledge, Banorte does not have “operations or presence in the 16 United States.” Id. In addition, Defendant requested the information from Plaintiff directly but 17 has not received a response from Plaintiff. Id. at 7. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff’s recent 18 indictment make it unlikely that Plaintiff will respond to Defendant’s requests for production. Id. 19 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 20 Plaintiff argues that granting Defendant’s motion and issuing the letters rogatory would 21 prejudice Plaintiff in his criminal case. Opposition at 2. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s 22 requests “seek[] information from a non-party subject to criminal proceedings.” Opposition at 23 2. Plaintiff states that no letters of request should issue prior to the district judge ruling on 24 Plaintiff’s pending motion to stay because the discovery impacts Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment 25 rights. Id. at 2, 3. Plaintiff argues that Defendant “is improperly seeking a back door for the 26 discovery of evidence to assist the United States in its criminal proceedings[,]” which is 27 impermissible because the governing statue does not allow letters rogatory to be issued as part 1 of a criminal proceeding. Id. at 4. Further, Plaintiff argues that because he does not have 2 standing to object to the letters rogatory related to Ruiz and because Defendant did not serve 3 copies of the subpoena on Ruiz, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion. Id. at 2-3, 4. 4 DEFENDANT’S REPLY 5 Defendant states that Plaintiff fails to “substantively explain why he opposes 6 [Defendant’s] properly filed Motion on any grounds other than timing.” Reply at 2. Defendant 7 asserts that there is no basis for Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant is seeking evidence to assist 8 the United States in Plaintiff’s criminal case, as the United States is capable and better positioned 9 to obtain its own evidence. Id. at 4, 5. Defendant states that it is seeking discoverable 10 information that is relevant to its counterclaims in this civil action. Id. at 2. Further, Defendant 11 retorts that there are no Fifth Amendment concerns because Defendant is not attempting to 12 compel Plaintiff’s testimony or Plaintiff’s own documents. Id. at 3. Defendant seeks to obtain 13 discoverable information from third-party financial institutions. Id. Further, Defendant states 14 that Plaintiff’s unopposed stay will protect his Fifth Amendment rights, “as they relate to this 15 separate, civil action.” Id. at 4. Defendant states that Defendant, not Plaintiff, would be 16 prejudiced if the Court denies its request, even if the case is stayed because requests under the 17 Hague Convention can take several months. Id. at 3. Defendant asserts that even if a stay is 18 granted, limited discovery is permissible. Id. at 4. 19 Finally, Defendant states that Ruiz would equally not have standing to challenge the 20 letters rogatory because he is not a party to this action and Defendant seeks the production of 21 the banks’ records, not Ruiz’s records. Id. at 6. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Relevance and Comity Factors 24 In determining whether to grant the issuance of letters of rogatory, the Court considers 25 the moving party’s request in light of the liberal discovery authorized under Rule 26 and can 26 also consider a five-factor comity analysis: 27 (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 1 the information; and (5) the extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine interests of the United States, or compliance with the request would 2 undermine important interests of the state where the information is located. 3 See Desirous Parties Unlimited Inc., 2023 WL 245871 , at *2 n.3 (citing Societe Nationale 4 Industrielle Aeropatiale v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 , 5 544 n.28 (1987)). 6 Here, the Court find that the factors weigh in favor of issuing the requested letters 7 rogatory. 8 First, the Court finds that the requested information is material and necessary to this case 9 because it directly relates to Defendant’s claims in its cross-complaint. Defendant alleges that 10 Plaintiff and Ruiz embezzled money from Defendant and transferred at least some amount to 11 accounts at Citibanamex and Banorte, including accounts held by Ruiz. Further, Defendant 12 alleges that Ruiz deposited payments from Defendant into an account Plaintiff could access. As 13 such, the requested information is relevant and discoverable. See Trabulsi v. Wells Fargo Bank, 14 Nat’l Ass’n, 2018 WL 6444892 , at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) (“the allegations in a complaint 15 generally dictate what evidence is discoverable”). Plaintiff makes no argument that the 16 requested information is irrelevant or immaterial. Accordingly, the first factor weighs in favor of 17 issuing the letters rogatory. 18 Second, and as further discussed below, the Court finds Defendant’s requests are not 19 narrowly tailored and specific in nature. Defendant fails to provide necessary definitions and a 20 relevant time period for its requests. While such finding may weigh in favor of denying 21 Defendant’s request, the Court finds that the requests can be rewritten to be narrowly tailored 22 and specific in nature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing that courts must limit discovery 23 to prevent abuse). 24 Third, the Court finds that the information in the requested documents likely originated 25 in the United States and is maintained in Mexico because Defendant states that money from 26 Leidos was deposited into Ruiz’s Mexican bank accounts. As such, the third factor weighs in 27 favor of issuing the letters rogatory. 1 Fourth, Defendant establishes that there are no alternative means of securing the 2 requested information. Defendant is unable to subpoena and receive responsive documents 3 from either Citibanamex or Banorte in the United States. In addition, Defendant is unlikely to 4 receive the requested information directly from Plaintiff given the arguments raised in the 5 Opposition and Motion to Stay. Even if Plaintiff were able to obtain the information directly from 6 Plaintiff, Defendant would have the “right to verify whether [Plaintiff’s] information (once 7 provided) is accurate.” Desirous Parties Unlimited Inc., 2023 WL 245871 , at *3 (citing Fisher & 8 Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. Flexicare Inc., 2020 WL 5900155 , at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020)). 9 Accordingly, the Court finds that the fourth factor weighs in favor of granting Defendant’s 10 motion. 11 Finally, the Court is unaware, and the parties do not raise how the issuing nation’s (United 12 States) or the receiving nation’s (Mexico) interests will be affected in a manner that would weigh 13 in favor or against issuing the requested letters rogatory. Hence, the fifth factor is neutral. 14 Since factors one, three, and four weigh in favor of issuing the letters rogatory, and the 15 requests can be written to be more narrowly tailored and specific in nature, the Court finds that 16 Defendant has made a reasonable showing that the evidence sought is relevant and falls within 17 the broad scope of discovery authorized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 18 B. Scope of Requests 19 As noted, Defendant’s requests are not narrowly tailored and specific in nature. 20 While discovery through letters rogatory is subject to the liberal discovery provisions 21 outlined in Rule 26, Rule 26 does impose limits on the scope of discovery.4 See Fisher and Paykel 22 Healthcare Ltd., 2020 WL 5900155 , at *2 (citing Viasat, 2013 WL 12061801 , at *7 and Calixto [25] 4 To fall within the scope of discovery, the information must be “proportional to the needs of [26] the case,” requiring lawyers to “size and shape their discovery requests to the requisites of a 27 case” while “eliminat[ing] unnecessary or wasteful discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Cancino Castellar v. McAleenan, 2020 WL 133485 , at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2020)(quoting Roberts v. 1 v. Watson Bowman Acme Corp., 2009 WL 3823390 , at *20-22 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2009)); see 2 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. (26)(b)(2)(C). 3 Here, the Court finds that Defendant’s requests seek relevant information but the 4 requests as written are overbroad. As an initial manner, Defendant requests any and all 5 “COMMUNICATIONS,” but fails to provide any definition to the same.5 Defendant also fails to 6 discuss the requested “COMMUNICATIONS” in its Motion or Reply. Instead, Defendant refers 7 to the requested documents as bank records throughout its Motion and Reply. In addition, the 8 Court finds that Defendant’s definition of “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” is sufficient to 9 encompass the relevant documents it seeks. The Court notes that Defendant improperly defines 10 “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” to include “all materials and things that constitute ‘WRITINGS’ 11 or ‘RECORDINGS’ as defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence 34(a)(1)(A).” Exhibit M at 2; 12 Exhibit Q at 2. The Court notes that there is no Federal Rule of Evidence 34. Based on 13 Defendant’s drafting of its definition, the Court is unable to determine whether Defendant meant 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 or Federal Rule of Evidence 1001. Thus, Defendant will need 15 to redraft the definition for clarity. 16 Second, Defendant requests are overbroad as to time. See Exhibit M and Exhibit Q. 17 Defendants do not mention when or over what period of time the $3.2 million was stolen nor 18 when accounts were opened or accessed. See Motion & Reply. Upon the Court’s review of 19 Defendant’s cross-complaint, Defendant alleges that “[Plaintiff] and Ruiz embezzled at least 20 approximately $3.2 million from [Defendant] between 2013 and 2021[,]” as “[Defendant] paid 21 Ruiz, through his company JB Ruiz y Asociados, for services purportedly rendered in connection 22 with maintenance contracts for Mexican Customs[]” since at least 2013. See ECF No. 3 at ¶ 36. 23 Accordingly, the Court finds the relevant time period to be 2013 to present and Defendant must 24 limit its requests accordingly. See United States ex rel. Jacobs v. CDS, P.A., 2016 WL 4146077 , [26] 5 The Court also notes that Defendant failed to provide a definition for “JUAN GONZALEZ RUIZ,” 27 which may make it difficult for the producing party to provide responsive documents. In contrast, Defendant defined Plaintiff by providing necessary identifying information. See Exhibit 1 at *2 (D. Idaho Aug. 3, 2016) (“The allegations of the complaint logically shape the scope of 2 discovery.”). As such, the Court rewrites Defendant’s requests to each institution as follows: 3 1. Any DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, statements and correspondence, 4 regarding any bank account that PLAINTIFF could legally access or is or was previously 5 the owner, account holder, authorized user, or beneficiary from 2013 to present. 6 2. Any DOCUMENTS, including, but not limited to, statements and correspondence, 7 regarding any bank account that JUAN GONZALEZ RUIZ could legally access or is 8 or was previously the owner, account holder, authorized user, or beneficiary from 9 2013 to present. 10 As discussed, Defendant must also provide a definition for “JUAN GONZALEZ RUIZ” that is 11 sufficient to allow the responding party to locate responsive documents and clarify the definition 12 of “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS.” 13 C. Good Cause 14 The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish good cause to deny Defendant’s motion. 15 Plaintiff generally argues that the Court should not issue the requested letters rogatory 16 because they “are an abuse of discovery and an attempt to knowingly obtain information related 17 to criminal proceedings.” Opposition at 4-5. The Court is unpersuaded. Plaintiff does not cite 18 to any legal authority to support this proposition. Plaintiff only improperly cites to 28 U.S.C. § 19 1784 to suggest that letters rogatory cannot be used for a criminal proceeding.6 Id. at 3. 20 Further, Plaintiff does not provide facts or evidence to suggest that Defendant seeks this 21 information to assist the government in Plaintiff’s criminal proceeding.7 Plaintiff merely asserts 22 that “[Defendant] has a vested interest in assisting the United States in prosecuting both 23 [Plaintiff] and Ruiz,” which is based on his opinion that the language in the indictment and cross24 [6] 28 U.S.C. § 1784 outlines procedures for holding a producing party in contempt for failing to 27 comply with a court’s subpoena. 7 As noted by Defendant in its Reply, the United States is capable of obtaining evidence, including 1 complaint mirror one another. Opposition at 4. These arguments are insufficient and the Court 2 does not find good cause to deny Defendant’s request on this basis. 3 Plaintiff also argues that there are Fifth Amendment concerns that must be considered 4 because “there is a large degree of factual overlap between the civil and criminal cases[.]” 5 Opposition at 3. Plaintiff cites to ESP Capital Partners LP v. Stratos, 22 F.Supp. 3d 1042 , 1045 6 (C.D. Cal. 2014) and McCormick v. Rexroth, 2010 WL 934242 , which are not persuasive here. 7 In ESP Capital Partners LP, the court denied the defendant’s motion to stay despite the 8 defendant’s criminal proceeding and potential Fifth Amendment implications. 22 F.Supp. at 9 1047. The court reasoned that self-incrimination concerns alone were not enough to 10 warrant a stay, in part, because the Ninth Circuit previously held that Fifth Amendment 11 implications are not dispositive when determining whether to stay a civil case when there is a 12 pending criminal case. Id. at 1046. In McCormick, the court granted the defendant’s motion to 13 stay and found that Fifth Amendment concerns did weigh in favor of granting the stay because 14 the defendant did not initiate the civil action since he “was ‘haled into [] court involuntarily as a 15 defendant.’” 2010 WL 934242 at *2. Neither case supports the position that Defendant’s 16 request should be denied because of the potential for self-incrimination. Here, Defendant is not 17 attempting to compel testimony or documents directly from Plaintiff. Defendant only seeks third 18 party records. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate or provide authority that suggests a third19 party’s records implicate his Fifth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the Court does not find good 20 cause to deny Defendant’s request on this basis. 21 Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s motion “is void of any evidence supporting the 22 Court’s issuance of letters rogatory for information related to Ruiz[,]” who “is unlikely to know 23 of the subpoenas, or can even respond to the subpoenas, because he is in federal custody.” 24 Opposition at 4-5. Ruiz is not a party to this action and Plaintiff fails to provide authority to 25 support his position that Ruiz is entitled to notice. The Court also finds that Defendant did 26 provide support for its Motion, as discussed in detail above. See infra Section A. As such, the 27 Court does not find good cause to deny Defendant’s motion on this basis. 1 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish good cause do deny □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 ||motion. The requested information is relevant and material to Defendant’s embezzlement 3 claims, can be narrowly tailored, and cannot be obtained from Plaintiff or a financial institution 4 the United States. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant's motion. Within three 7 ||(3) calendar days, Defendant is ORDERED to submit revised letters rogatory that comply with 8 || this Order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: 5/3/2023 lobe Mager 11 Hon. Barbara L. Major United States Maqistrate Judde [28] 1?