SUMMARY ORDER

Tim Fuhr appeals from the August 6, 2014 order and judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.) denying Tim Fuhr’s petition seeking judicial assistance in obtaining evidence for use in a defamation action pending in Germany pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (the “Petition”) and the September 18, 2014 order and judgment of that same district court denying Fuhr’s motions for reconsideration and to amend or alter the August 6, 2014 order and judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Fuhr seeks to obtain evidence from Deutsche Bank pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which provides that:

The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.... The order may be made ... upon the application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court.... The order may prescribe the practice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or producing the document or other thing.

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Once those statutory requirements are met, a district court may, if it chooses to exercise its discretion, grant discovery under Section 1782. Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 83-84 (2d Cir. 2004).

“[W]e review de novo the district court’s determination as to whether the statutory requirements of § 1782 are met, and if we are satisfied that these requirements are met, we review the district court’s decision on whether to grant discovery for abuse of discretion. However, we review de novo the question of whether the statute imposes any particular limitations on the exercise of that discretion.” Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1998) (italics omitted).

We find no error with the district court’s conclusion that while the Section 1782 petition names Deutsche Bank AG as respondent, Fuhr actually seeks information from Deutsche Bank (Suisse). Even assuming arguendo that Deutsche Bank AG is “found in” the Southern District as required by the. statute, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. Entirely absent from the record is any evidence that the information sought is located within the Southern District.

We have considered the remainder of Fuhr’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED. Finally, Fuhr’s motion to supplement the record is hereby DENIED, as there are no “extraordinary circumstances” that require supplementing the record to include *701 evidence not considered by the district court below. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1975).