RE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER NO. CV 06-6508 RSWL (CWx)
On a proper reading of the letter of request and supporting evidence the request sought evidence for use at the US trial (not pre-trial discovery); the master had jurisdiction under Evidence Ordinance ss.75-76; the topics were sufficiently certain and not a fishing expedition or oppressive; therefore the master's order should be upheld save for a limited variation on who may examine.
- Citation
- RE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER NO. CV 06-6508 RSWL (CWx)
- Parties
- Applicant (deponent): Chan Ming Yiu; Requesting Party / Plaintiff (us Proceedings): Wham-O, Inc.; Defendant (us Proceedings): SLB Toys USA Inc.; Non Party Corporate Entity (subject of Inquiry): Manley Toys Ltd
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 12 October 2007
- Case Number
- HCMP1367/2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Order 70 Rule 2 and Evidence Ordinance (assistance to Foreign Proceedings) / Hearing of Application to Set Aside Master's Order (interlocutory)
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; master's order upheld with variation
- Legal Topics
- Letters Rogatory, Pre Trial Discovery, Fishing Expedition, Jurisdiction to Order Evidence, Oppression and Vagueness, Deposition Procedure
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chan Ming Yiu
Applicant (deponent)
Wham-O, Inc.
Requesting Party / Plaintiff (us Proceedings)
SLB Toys USA Inc.
Defendant (us Proceedings)
Manley Toys Ltd
Non Party Corporate Entity (subject of Inquiry)
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Order 70 Rule 2 and Evidence Ordinance (assistance to Foreign Proceedings) / Hearing of Application to Set Aside Master's Order (interlocutory)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Hong Kong court had jurisdiction under Evidence Ordinance ss.75-76 to give effect to the letter of request
- 2 Whether the letter of request sought pre-trial discovery (impermissible) or evidence for use at trial (permissible)
- 3 Whether the request amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition
Ratio Decidendi
On a proper reading of the letter of request and supporting evidence the request sought evidence for use at the US trial (not pre-trial discovery); the master had jurisdiction under Evidence Ordinance ss.75-76; the topics were sufficiently certain and not a fishing expedition or oppressive; therefore the master's order should be upheld save for a limited variation on who may examine.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; master's order upheld with variation
Orders
- Application to set aside or vary the master's order dismissed
- Master's order upheld subject to variation of paragraph 3
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment