## Facts

- Time, Inc. published an article alleging that former Indonesian President Suharto engaged in corruption and used business connections to amass wealth.
- Suharto filed a defamation suit against Time and certain editors/reporters in an Indonesian district court.
- Time sought U.S. discovery from Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., headquartered in New Orleans, and its CEO, James Moffett, concerning Freeport’s Indonesian operations and alleged ties to Suharto.
- Time applied in the Eastern District of Louisiana for permission to issue subpoenas under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for depositions and document production for use in the Indonesian case.
- Freeport and Moffett, non-parties to the Indonesian litigation, objected to the requested subpoenas.
- Indonesian procedure did not provide U.S.-style party-driven discovery; the Indonesian court retained broad control over what evidence would be considered.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 were satisfied (respondents found in the district; foreign tribunal proceeding; applicant an interested person; material sought for use in the foreign proceeding).
2. Whether the court should, in its discretion, deny or limit § 1782 discovery based on comity and the risk of using U.S. discovery to bypass the foreign tribunal’s proof-gathering framework.
3. Whether the requested subpoenas imposed undue burden on non-party targets and should be refused or narrowed under principles reflected in Rules 26 and 45.

## Decision

- The court denied Time’s § 1782 application in substantial part and refused to compel the broad discovery sought from Freeport and Moffett.
- The court treated § 1782 as discretionary even where threshold statutory elements could be satisfied.
- The court gave weight to the foreign forum’s procedures, the uncertain utility of the discovery in that forum, and the burdens imposed on non-parties.

## Legal Principles

- Satisfaction of § 1782’s statutory requirements does not require granting discovery; district courts retain discretion to deny or restrict requests.
- In exercising discretion, courts may consider comity and whether the request effectively bypasses or conflicts with the foreign tribunal’s approach to evidence-gathering.
- Discovery directed to non-parties for use in foreign litigation is subject to close scrutiny, including whether the request is overbroad or imposes undue burden or expense.
- A court may deny § 1782 relief where the applicant does not show sufficient practical need or likely usefulness of the requested evidence in the foreign proceeding to justify the burden on third parties.

## Conclusion

The court declined to authorize expansive § 1782 subpoenas against a non-party U.S. corporation and its CEO for use in an Indonesian defamation case, relying on the discretionary nature of § 1782, comity concerns tied to foreign procedural choices, and the undue burdens associated with broad third-party discovery.


In re Application of Time, Inc., No. Civ. A. 99-1750, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15858 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 1999)