Discovery

• Pages: 44-47

44 Volume 22, July–September 2016 international law update

© 2016 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com

“ere is no evidence that dierential treatment

of foreign-language mail was motivated by race or

national origin or that the treatment of Chinese-

language mail was a pretext for discrimination. See

Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (8th Cir.

1998) (en banc). e only evidence on this point

shows that prison ocials arranged for translation

of Spanish-language mail because employees with

language skills were available to read it, while

there was no sta able to translate Chinese. For

the reasons discussed, the Department’s approach

to Chinese-language mail was reasonably related

to legitimate penological objectives. It was not a

racial classication subject to heightened scrutiny.

Cf. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 510-

12 (2005). Similarly, any dierence in timing

between the authorization of inmate telephone

calls to Mexico and calls to China was explained

by technical diculties of a third party, not by

discrimination at the hands of state ocials based

on race or national origin.”

e Court thus armed the district court’s

dismissal.

citation: Yang v. Missouri Department of

Corrections, 833 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2016).

DISCOVERY

Where ex-wife of Russian citizen

unsuccessfully sought discovery to

locate assets of ex-husband, United

States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit affirms the District

Court in all respects and notes that

the statutory language ‘authorizes, but

does not require,’ that district courts

provide judicial assistance to § 1782

applicants

After sixteen years of marriage, Appellee

Anna Sergeeva (“Ex-Wife”) and Mikhail

Leopoldovich Dubin (“Ex-Husband”) divorced

in the Russian Federation (“Russia”). Upon

divorce, they commenced a distinct proceeding in

the Hoamvnischesky District Court of Moscow

(“Moscow Court”) for division of marital assets

(“Russian Dispute”). Ex-Wife requested discovery

in support of her claim that Ex-Husband was

concealing and dissipating material assets through

and with the assistance of “oshore companies”

around the world. ese companies were located

in Cyprus, Latvia, Switzerland, the British Virgin

Islands (“BVI”), the Commonwealth of the

Bahamas (“Bahamas”), and the United States of

America.

Ex-Wife sought information from Gabriella

Pugh (“Ms. Pugh”) and her employer in Atlanta,

Georgia—Appellant Trident Corporate Services,

Inc. (“Trident Atlanta”)—which she expected

would reveal Ex-Husband’s benecial ownership

of a Bahamian corporation, Tripleton International

Limited (“Tripleton”). Not being able to obtain the

information sought, she initiated a § 1782 action in

the Atlanta division of the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of Georgia. e Magistrate

Judge granted Ex-Wife’s Ex Parte Application for

Judicial Assistance (“Application”) and authorized

service of two subpoenas (“Ex Parte MJ Order”).