Case 1:20-mc-00036-JEB-ZMF Document 22 Filed 09/22/21 Page 24 of 32 “Assuming a district court has the authority to grant a discovery request under § 1782, the court then considers whether to exercise its discretion to do so.” Norex Petroleum, 384 F. Supp. 2d at 49. It is uncontested that the statutory factors of § 1782 are met here. 16 “The fourth [Intel] factor is the salient one here.” Hulley Enters., 2017 WL 3708028, at *4. It considers “the scope of the requested discovery, asking whether it is ‘unduly intrusive or burdensome.’” In re DiGiulian, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Intel, 542 U.S. at 265). “[C]ourts have interpreted this inquiry to encompass ‘the relevance of the requested discovery to the foreign proceeding.’” Id. (quoting Hulley Enters., 2017 WL 3708028, at *4). This is the traditional proportionality analysis. See MetaLab Design Ltd. v. Zozi Int’l, Inc., 2018 WL 368766, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Burden Of Production The Gambia seeks a discrete and known universe of records—the content that Facebook previously found and deleted from its platform. Yet Facebook argues that the discovery requests offer no meaningful metric for identifying accounts and are overbroad. See Resp’t’s Opp’n at 10– 13. Rather than requesting communications from “a litany of individuals or entities, none of whom are specifically identified,” id. at 10, The Gambia specifically identified the communications of seventeen individuals, four entities, and nine Facebook pages, see Pet’r’s Mot. at 14–17. Any pages or accounts of which The Gambia does not know the specific identity, Facebook does. See id. Indeed, The Gambia’s discovery requests are cribbed from Facebook’s press release on deplatforming and are limited to the information Facebook de-platformed. See Conf. Tr. at 10, 139 16 Facebook has offices in the District of Columbia. See Pet’r’s Mot. at 19. The pending ICJ case constitutes a proceeding before an international tribunal and The Gambia is an interested party in that proceeding as a litigant. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 256 (finding that a litigant before the foreign tribunal is the quintessential interested person). 24