Case 1:20-mc-00036-JEB-DAR Document 8 Filed 08/04/20 Page 9 of 18 discovery. Intel Corp. v. Adv. Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 255 (2004). “A district court need not grant § 1782(a) discovery ‘simply because it has the authority to do so,’” In Matter of Application of Leret, 51 F. Supp. 3d 66, 69 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264), and it may not grant a Section 1782 application that conflicts with U.S. law, see Rainsy v. Facebook, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 2018). When considering a Section 1782 application, courts also must weigh several prudential factors, known as the Intel factors, including (1) whether the “person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding”; (2) the nature and character of the foreign proceeding, and whether the foreign court is receptive to judicial assistance from the United States; (3) whether the request is an 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.” Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264–66. Requests that are found to be “unduly intrusive or burdensome ... may be rejected.” Id. at 265. The applicant bears the “burden to come to the court with [a] narrowly-tailored request in the first instance,” and failure to do so is grounds for denying an application outright. In re Ex Parte Application of Nokia Corp., 2013 WL 6073457, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013); In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 183944, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013). 5