Nikon Corporation v. Asml U.S., Inc. , 707 F. App'x 476 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 12 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: APPLICATION PURSUANT TO No. 17-16961
28 U.S.C. § 1782 TO TAKE
DISCOVERY OF ASML U.S., INC. D.C. No. 2:17-mc-00035-JJT
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
NIKON CORPORATION,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
ASML U.S., INC.,
Respondent-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the
District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
ASML U.S., Inc., timely appeals the district court’s order, in response to a
request by Nikon Corporation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), requiring ASML
U.S. to produce documents and other information. Reviewing for abuse of
discretion, Four Pillars Enters. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075, 1078
(9th Cir. 2002), we affirm.
The statutory requirements for discovery indisputably are met. The district
court carefully considered the factors described by the Supreme Court in Intel
Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004). On this record,
we cannot conclude that the court abused its "broad discretion" in ordering
discovery limited to documents physically located within the United States.
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. FibroGen, Inc., 793 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2015).
For example, even for the documents located both in the United States and
abroad, the second Intel factor is met because Nikon’s experts stated, in unrebutted
declarations, that the foreign tribunals would welcome the discoverable evidence.
Similarly, we are unpersuaded that the discovery order imposes an undue burden
on ASML U.S., the fourth Intel factor. Even if an alternative weighing of the
factors were reasonable, the district court’s decision was not "(1) illogical, (2)
implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts
in the record." Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 580, 589 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal
2
quotation marks omitted). Moreover, no bright-line rule exists in the statute,
Supreme Court law, or our precedents—and we decline to create one—to the effect
that discovery must be denied for the sole reason that the same items are found in
another country.
AFFIRMED.
3