Case 1:20-mc-00036-JEB-ZMF Document 22 Filed 09/22/21 Page 28 of 32 Reuters (Aug. 11, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-facebook/u-n-investigatorsaysfacebook-has-not-shared-evidence-of-myanmar-crime-idUSKCN2570K9; Conf. Tr. at 38– 40. Relying on Facebook’s own interpretation of the consent exception, Facebook has provided only limited public postings to the IIMM. See Conf. Tr. at 65–66. Facebook opines that, compared to the ICJ, the IIMM is a “uniquely positioned body . . . tasked with collecting, preserving, and analyzing information for use in criminal proceedings under international law and in other contexts on a case-by-case basis, and with expediting and facilitating fair criminal proceedings.” Resp’t’s Surreply at 1. The ICJ is not the McDowell’s to the IIMM’s McDonald’s. See Panama Jackson, Coming to America Questions That Need Answers: Was McDowell’s Better than McDonald’s? An Examination (Mar. 3, 2021), https://www.theroot.com/coming-to-america-questions-that-need-answers-was-mcdo1846387969. The ICJ is “the central expositor of international law,” Doe v. Nestle, S.A., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2010), whose “judgments and opinions . . . are accorded great weight,” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations, § 103 cmt. (b). In fact, the ICJ may be a superior venue given that it regularly adjudicates Genocide Convention issues. See, e.g., Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 759 (9th Cir. 2011) (overturned on other grounds). The Court agrees that “the IIMM is not participating in the proceedings before the [ICJ]—and [The Gambia has] no reason to believe that any materials that Facebook would provide to the IIMM would be sufficient to satisfy its obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.” Pet’r’s Resp. to Surreply at 1–2. C. Facebook’s Internal Investigation The Gambia separately requests records related to Facebook’s internal investigation of its role in the Rohingya genocide. See Resp’t’s Opp’n at 8. To the extent these records are protected 28