Techteryx Ltd v. For an Order to Take Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
In Re Application of TECHTERYX LTD., 	)
)
Applicant, 	) 	MC-26-04-R
)
ORDER
Before the Court is the ex parte Application of Applicant Techteryx Ltd. for an
Order to Conduct Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782
[Doc. No. 1].1 Techteryx submitted a memorandum of law and two declarations in support
of its application [Doc. Nos. 2, 4, 5]. For the reasons explained below, the Application is
granted.
Techteryx seeks this Court’s assistance in obtaining documents and testimony from
Aria Commodities-USA, LLC, Aria Commodities Americas LLC, and Lane Walker.
Respondents Aria USA and Aria Americas are limited liability companies organized under
the laws of Kansas with their principal places of business in Edmond, Oklahoma.
Respondent Walker is the owner of each entity and resides at the same address in Edmond.
Techteryx represents that it intends to file suit against four Singaporean entities in
the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore for claims arising
from 	“a 	massive, 	years-long 	international 	fraud 	through 	which 	several 	interrelated
investment fund entities, all of which share the name ‘Aria’ and are managed or controlled
1 “An ex parte application is an acceptable method for seeking discovery pursuant to section 1782.” In re
Risenhoover, No. CIV-12-0540-D, 2012 WL 5513712, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 14, 2012).
Case 5:26-mc-00004-R Document 12 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
by Matthew Brittain, defrauded Techteryx.” Doc. No. 2, p. 1-2. According to Techteryx,
Respondents comprise the U.S. arm of the Aria entities and played integral roles in
misappropriating up to $200 million from Techteryx.
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, a district court may order a person residing or found
within its district to produce documents or testimony for use in a foreign legal proceeding,
unless the disclosure would violate a legal privilege.” In re Risenhoover, 2012 WL
5513712, at *1. “The threshold statutory requirements of Section 1782(a) are met when
‘(1) the person from whom discovery is sought resides (or is found) in the district of the
district court to which the application is made, (2) the discovery is for use in a foreign
proceeding before a tribunal, and (3) the application is made by a foreign or international
tribunal or any interested person.’” In re Perez Pallares, No. 10-CV-02528-PAB, 2010
WL 4193072, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 20, 2010) (quoting Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard &
Lifshitz LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 83 (2d Cir. 2004)).
However, “[e]ven if all of the statutory requirements are met, permitting the
requested discovery remains within the discretion of the Court.” Westjest Airlines, Ltd. v.
Lipsman, No. 15-MC-00174-MSK-KMT, 2015 WL 7253043, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 17,
2015) (citing Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004)). “In
exercising that discretion, the court should consider the following non-exhaustive factors:
(1) whether ‘the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign
proceeding’; (2) ‘the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings
underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency
abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance’; (3) whether the discovery request is ‘an
Case 5:26-mc-00004-R Document 12 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign
country or the United States’; and (4) whether the discovery request is ‘unduly intrusive or
burdensome.’” In re Risenhoover, 2012 WL 5513712, at *1 (quoting Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-
65).
Here, Techteryx’s Application satisfies the three statutory requirements. The
entities list their principal place of business as an address in Edmond, Oklahoma and Mr.
Lane lists the same address as his own. The evidence sought by Techteryx is for use in a
foreign proceeding before a foreign tribunal and, although the proceeding has not yet
started, it is within reasonable contemplation. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 258 (“Section 1782(a)
does not limit the provision of judicial assistance to ‘pending’ adjudicative proceedings.”).
Last, Techteryx is an interested party because it is the claimant in the foreign proceeding.
Additionally, the discretionary factors weigh in favor of granting the application.
Techteryx indicates that it does not anticipate naming Respondents as defendants in the
foreign proceeding, there is no indication that the Singapore court is not receptive to U.S.
judicial assistance, and there is no indication that Techteryx is seeking to circumvent
foreign evidence gathering-rules. See In re Sri Trang Gloves (Thailand) Pub. Co. Ltd., No.
25-MC-325 (JAV), 2025 WL 2411137, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2025). As to the final
factor, the Court does not find that the requested discovery is unduly intrusive or
burdensome in light of the allegations outlined in Techteryx’s Application. However, if
Respondents disagree, they may seek modification of the requests through the appropriate
discovery practices and motions.
Case 5:26-mc-00004-R Document 12 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Accordingly, the Application of Applicant Techteryx Ltd. for an Order to Conduct
Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED. Applicant is permitted to issue the subpoenas attached to its Application.
Applicant’s Motion for Hearing on its Application [Doc. No. 9] is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-mc-00004-R Document 12 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 4