A United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, has granted the request filed by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, seeking the release of President Bola Tinubu’s academic records by the Chicago State University.
Judge Jeffrey Gilbert, a US magistrate, gave the ruling on Tuesday, ordering CSU to produce “all relevant and non-privileged documents” to Abubakar Atiku, the plaintiff, within two days,” CHANNELS TV reports.
“This matter is before the Court on Atiku Abubakar’s Application Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an Order Directing Discovery from Chicago State University for Use in a Foreign Proceeding (“Application”) [ECF No. 1]. For the reasons discussed below, the Application is granted,” the judge ruled.
Tinubu’s lawyers have argued that their client is not willing to lift his privacy privilege, with the ruling also conceding this by using the term ‘non-privileged documents”.
Atiku had approached the court seeking an order that will compel the university to release Tinubu’s records.
Although Tinubu’s credentials indicated that he graduated in 1979 with a bachelor’s degree in accounting, there have been allegations bordering on discrepancies in the President’s certificate. READ ALSO:
- ECOWAS gives Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger six months to reconsider withdrawal
- SEC unveils new investment enlightenment Campaign
- Defamation Debate: Between Afe Babalola vs Dele Farotimi
- Premier League: Manchester United Stun City At Etihad
- Super Falcons Forward Switches Club In Mexico
The court concluded thus:
- CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons discussed above, Atiku Abubakar’s Application Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an Order Directing Discovery from Chicago State University for Use in a Foreign Proceeding [ECF No. 1] is granted. Respondent CSU shall produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in response to Requests for
[1] The narrowed subpoenas originally were filed by Applicant at [ECF Nos. 22-1, 22-2]. Corrected versions of the narrowed subpoenas subsequently were filed by Applicant at [ECF Nos. 38, 39]. Accordingly, the Court considers the corrected versions of the narrowed subpoenas that Applicant filed at [ECF Nos. 38, 39].
[2] The “Westberg Affidavit” is defined in the subpoena as the Affidavit of Caleb Westberg, the Registrar of CSU, attached to the Intervenor’s Response to the Application. See [ECF No. 39] (citing [ECF No. 21-1]).
[3] See, e.g., John Deere Ltd. v. Sperry Corp., 754 F.2d 132, 136 n.3 (3d Cir. 1985) (“[i]t is doubtful” the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 “can be expanded to impose a requirement that district courts predict or construe the procedural or substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction”); Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095, 1099-100 (2d Cir. 1995) (“we do not read the statute to condone speculative forays into legal territories unfamiliar to federal judges”).
[4] As noted above, Applicant’s Petition in the Nigerian Proceedings generally raised the argument that Intervenor was not qualified to participate in the election without citing to specific supporting facts or evidence. See Applicant’s Reply [ECF No. 22], at 3-4 (citing First Liu Decl. [ECF No. 5-2], Ex. B at ¶16(d)); see also [ECF No. 5-2], Ex. B at ¶146; Uwais Decl. [ECF No. 24], at ¶4. Applicant specifically identified and discussed the forged documents argument in his reply filings in support of his Petition to the Nigerian Court of Appeal. Uwais Decl. [ECF No. 24], at ¶7; see also Nigerian Court of Appeal Decision [ECF No. 34], at 545558, 606, 608-09.
[5] Although Intervenor acknowledges CSU is not a party to the Nigerian Proceedings, Intervenor contends this factor weighs against granting the Application because it is his (President Tinubu’s) educational records that are sought in the subpoena. Intervenor’s Response, [ECF No. 21], at 9-10. Contrary to Intervenor’s characterization, however, Applicant does not merely seek production of records allegedly already produced by CSU to Intervenor (and that maybe theoretically could have been obtained from Intervenor in the Nigerian Proceedings). Rather, Applicant is seeking information from CSU about the
[6] See, e.g., In re Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland GmBh, 742 F. App’x 690, 698 n.9 (3d Cir. 2018) (“we decline to speak to whether an ‘authoritative proof’ standard . . .is the appropriate inquiry under the second Intel factor”); In re Schlich, 893 F.3d at 51 (1st Cir. 2018) (“requiring the party opposing discovery to present ‘authoritative proof’ of the foreign tribunal’s unreceptiveness … could place pressure on the foreign tribunal and could exacerbate comity and parity concerns … [a]nd, if the opposing party fails to provide such exigent proof, then that could give carte blanche to the moving party for seeking discovery that is only marginally relevant to the foreign proceeding, thus potentially promoting fishing expeditions”); Dep’t of Caldas, 925 F.3d at 1222–23 (declining to require authoritative proof of foreign tribunal’s non-receptivity to the discovery sought under Section 1782).
[7] Intervenor cites Kestrel Coal PTY. LTD. v. Joy Global, Inc., 362 F.3d 401, 406 (7th Cir. 2004). Intervenor’s Response [ECF No. 21], at 11. In that decision, the Seventh Circuit found that where the presiding justice in the foreign tribunal in the proceedings for which the discovery was sought had “already . . . analyzed [applicant’s] need for the documents and held
[8] Although Intervenor was granted leave to file a Sur-Response, he did not respond to Applicant’s evidence that the Supreme Court of Nigeria may consider new evidence in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, Intervenor’s reliance on Venequip, S.A. v. Caterpillar,
[9] See Heraeus Med. GmbH, 2021 WL 4133710, at *6 (second Intel factor “was equivocal and neither favors nor disfavors” the application where petitioners submitted declarations from attorneys in France, Germany and Belgium in support of position that tribunals in those countries would accept evidence produced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 and “[r]espondents cite nothing to show that these tribunals would reject this evidence”). Other courts, applying an “authoritative proof” standard, have found circumstances arguably analogous to those here demonstrated the second Intel factor weighed in favor of allowing the discovery. See In re Martin & Harris Priv. Ltd., 2021 WL 2434069, at *6 (D.N.J. June 14, 2021) (“It therefore appears from the High Court of Bombay’s own orders that it has the authority to extend the deadline for discovery, not unlike a United States district court’s discretion to extend discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16” and “Merck has proffered no specific evidence that, to the extent the application seeks relevant discovery, the High Court of Bombay would reject it”; holding second Intel factor weighed in favor of allowing discovery sought in Application).
