In re: Time Inc
In re: Time Inc
Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ___________________________ No. 99-31284 ___________________________ In the matter of: TIME INC, An Order Issuing Subpoenas for the Taking of Depositions And The Production of Documents for Use In the Central Jakarta District Court, Indonesia, Plaintiff, JAMES R MOFFETT; FREEPORT MCMORAN COPPER AND GOLD INC, Appellants.
___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (99-MC-2916-C) ___________________________________________________ February 4, 2000 Before POLITZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges and RESTANI, Judge.* PER CURIAM:** In this appeal, we consider James Moffett’s challenge to the district court’s order requiring him to give deposition testimony pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Moffett principally argues that the magistrate judge erred in not requiring Time, Inc. to show that the discovery materials they sought in federal court were also discoverable in Indonesia. Alternatively, Moffett argues that the magistrate judge should have given more weight to the fact that Indonesian courts do not permit discovery.
* Judge of United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s general approach to the issues in this case. The district court properly took the question of whether Moffett’s testimony would be discoverable in Indonesia into account as one of the factors to be considered before issuing a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
We decline to engage in fine-tuning with respect to whether the district court should have given more weight to this consideration.
We therefore affirm the district court order with one modification: in addition to the seven hour time limitation imposed by the magistrate judge, we conclude that Time’s questions should be limited in scope to inquiries directly related to the four allegations contained in General Suharto’s complaint.
AFFIRMED as Modified.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.