context: First, it is neither uncommon nor improper for district courts to grant applications made pursuant to SS 1782 ex parte. The respondent's due process rights are not violated because he can later challenge any discovery request by moving to quash pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3).
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 673 F.3d 78, 78
citation_a.parenthetical: reviewing district court's grant of motion to quash subsequent to ex parte grant of SS 1782 petition
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Brandi-Dohrn, 673 F.3d at 78 (reviewing district court’s grant of motion to quash subsequent to ex parte grant of § 1782 petition); In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171, 173-75 (2d Cir.2002) (same); Nat’l Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184, 186 (2d Cir.1999) (same); see also In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., 539 F.2d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir.1976) (“Letters Rogatory are customarily received and appropriate action taken with respect thereto ex parte.”). Accordingly, Gushlak’s contention that he “was entitled to respond to the [§ 1782] [application both factually and legally and have his response considered by the district court as part of its plenary consideration of the [application” (Gushlak Reply Br. 11) is without merit.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 539 F.2d 1216, 1220
citation_b.parenthetical: "Letters Rogatory are customarily received and appropriate action taken with respect thereto ex parte."
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Brandi-Dohrn, 673 F.3d at 78 (reviewing district court’s grant of motion to quash subsequent to ex parte grant of § 1782 petition); In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171, 173-75 (2d Cir.2002) (same); Nat’l Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184, 186 (2d Cir.1999) (same); see also In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., 539 F.2d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir.1976) (“Letters Rogatory are customarily received and appropriate action taken with respect thereto ex parte.”). Accordingly, Gushlak’s contention that he “was entitled to respond to the [§ 1782] [application both factually and legally and have his response considered by the district court as part of its plenary consideration of the [application” (Gushlak Reply Br. 11) is without merit.