PLAYUP, INC., Plaintiff(s), v. DR. LAILA MINTAS, Defendant(s) Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK United States District Court, D. Nevada Filed February 21, 2024 Counsel Robert Alexander Rothman, Pro Hac Vice, Michael Popok, Pro Hac Vice, Zumpano, Patricios & Popok, New York, NY, Amanda Brookhyser, Zumpano Patricios Popok & Helsten, Las Vegas, NV, Todd L. Bice, Pisanelli Bice PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, Yohania T. Santana, Pro Hac Vice, Zumpano Patricios, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff(s). Benjamin Bradwell Gordon, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Eric T. Schmitt, Pro Hac Vice, Chicago, IL, Jack McLeod, Pro Hac Vice, William J. Quinlan, Pro Hac Vice, The Quinlan Law Firm, LLC, Chicago, IL, Jennifer L. Braster, Meredith L. Markwell, Naylor & Braster, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant(s) Laila Mintas 11 Mountain Cove Court Henderson, NV 89052. Robert Alexander Rothman, Pro Hac Vice, Zumpano, Patricios & Popok, New York, NY, for Defendant(s) PlayUp Ltd. Todd L. Bice, Pisanelli Bice PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant(s) Zumpano Patricios Popok & Helsten, PLLC, Michael S. Popok. Amanda Brookhyser, Zumpano Patricios Popok & Helsten, Las Vegas, NV, Todd L. Bice, Pisanelli Bice PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant(s) Amanda J. Brookhyser. Koppe, Nancy J., United States Magistrate Judge Order [Docket No. 464] *1 Pending before the Court is Laila Mintas’ motion for issuance of letters rogatory. Docket No. 264; see also Docket No. 469 (errata). PlayUp, Inc. and Daniel Simic filed a response. Docket No. 478. The Court does not require a reply or a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for issuance of letters rogatory is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND This case arises from a soured business relationship, resulting in the termination of Mintas as CEO, competing allegations of wrongful conduct, and competing claims for tens of millions of dollars in damages. These circumstances are no doubt personal for all involved—and the case involves a lot of money—which has spawned a contentious and messy discovery process. On February 6, 2024, Defendant and Counter-claimant Laila Mintas filed a motion seeking letters rogatory for depositions and documents from Australian residents Ashley Kerr, Farshad Amirbeaggi, Brooke Maniscalco, Ross Benson, and Sally McDow. Docket No. 478. That is the matter currently before the Court. II. STANDARDS “[A] letter rogatory is the request by a domestic court to a foreign court to take evidence from a certain witness.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 n.1 (2004). Private parties in U.S. litigation may seek the issuance of letters rogatory in civil lawsuits. See in re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557, 562 (9th Cir. 2011). A deposition may be taken in a foreign country “under a letter of request, whether or not captioned a ‘letter rogatory.’ ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)(B). A letter rogatory may also include a request for the production of documents. Viasat, Inc. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 2013 WL 12061801, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013). The standards governing such requests have been succinctly stated as follows: A court has inherent authority to issue letters rogatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1781 also implicitly provides federal courts with authority to issue letters rogatory. Whether to issue such a letter is a matter of discretion for the court. When determining whether to exercise its discretion, a court will generally not weigh the evidence sought from the discovery request nor will it attempt to predict whether that evidence will actually be obtained. A court's decision whether to issue a letter rogatory, though, does require an application of Rule 26(b) in light of the scope of discovery provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Under Rule 26(b), parties may obtain discovery regarding nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Dish Network LLC v. Jadoo TV, Inc., 2020 WL 6528425, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2020) (internal citations omitted). III. ANALYSIS The Court finds that issuance of a letter rogatory is appropriate in this case. Mintas has made a showing that the recipients have relevant information in this case. See Docket No. 464 at 7-8 (Ashley Kerr); id. at 8-9 (Farshad Amirbeaggi and Brooke Maniscalco); id. at 9-10 (Ross Benson); id. at 10 (Sally McDow). Moreover, PlayUp, Inc. and Simic do not oppose the request on its merits. Instead, they argue that the Court should make clear that it is not extending the discovery cutoff set for April 1, 2024. See Docket No. 478. The Court has not been presented with a request to extend discovery. To the contrary, Mintas’ filing appears to contemplate completing this foreign discovery before the current cutoff. See, e.g., Docket No. 464-2 at 2 (letter rogatory for Amirbeaggi noting discovery cutoff of April 1, 2024). As such, there is no current dispute regarding extending the discovery cutoff.[1] *2 Given that Ashley Kerr, Farshad Amirbeaggi, Brooke Maniscalco, Ross Benson, and Sally McDow are Australian residents, the letters rogatory are a necessary and appropriate mechanism to request the desired discovery. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for issuance of letters rogatory to take the deposition of and compel documents from Australian residents Ashley Kerr, Farshad Amirbeaggi, Brooke Maniscalco, Ross Benson, and Sally McDow. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Lastly, the Court notes Mintas’ reference to the fact that Kerr and Amirbeaggi are attorneys, see Docket No. 464 at 13-14, but it does not appear that either are attorneys for PlayUp, Inc. or Simic. Moreover, PlayUp, Inc. has itself identified both as percipient fact witnesses expected to have discoverable information. Docket No. 464-1 at 44, 47. As such, the Court has been provided no reason to believe that the attorney status of these witnesses would act to block an attempt to obtain discovery from them.