Mkrtchyan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
IN RE: §
EX PARTE APPLICATION OF § Misc. Action No. 4:25-MC-01950
OVIK MKRTCHYAN §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Applicant Ovik Mkrtchyan is an Armenian-Uzbek businessman who owns several
companies in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Uzbekistan, and Latvia. In April 2025,
Mkrtchyan brought two actions in English court against Radha Stirling and the owners
of The London Post news site for alleged libelous articles they published accusing
Mkrtchyan of participating in various international corruption schemes. According to
Mkrtchyan, these articles are part of a nefarious campaign to systematically destroy his
reputation and to orchestrate his illegal detention in Uzbekistan. In order to pursue his
claims in English court, Mkrtchyan asserts that he needs discovery from Straife LLC
(“Straife”), its CEO Joseph Fleming, and its subsidiary Hyperfocal Communications LLC
(“Hyperfocal”) (collectively, “the Respondents”), all alleged players in the campaign
against him. All three Respondents can be located in Houston, Texas.
Pending before the Court is Mkrtchyan’s Letter Rogatory/Request for Judicial
Assistance as to Ex Parte Application of Ovik Mkrtchyan for an Order to Take Discovery
under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (Dkt. No. 1). For the following reasons, Mkrtchyan’s Request for
Judicial Assistance is GRANTED.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 17, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 12

2
I. BACKGROUND
Mkrtchyan’s allegations span multiple countries and involve a variety of players.
In brief, he asserts that there is “an ongoing campaign by individuals and entities around
the world [including Respondents] to injure [him] tortiously and by unlawful means.”
(Dkt. No. 2 at 5). The relevant facts can be broken into two chapters: the Uzbek detention
chapter and the libel campaign chapter.1
A. THE UZBEK DETENTION CHAPTER
Self-described as “an entrepreneur and innovator,” Mkrtchyan is an international
businessman with companies that do business across the globe, including in Uzbekistan.
(Id. at 7). One such company is Gor Investment Limited (“Gor”), a UK-based company
that invests in “initiatives to combat infection in medical patients, process and dispose of
hazardous waste, harness gas metallurgy technology for the production of nano powders
of rare and precious metals, and train young engineers in Uzbekistan,” among other
projects. (Id.). Gor’s advisory board has included directors such as former U.S. Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, former Texas governor Rick Perry, and former U.S. Under
Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon, Jr. (Id.).
These extensive business interests, according to Mkrtchyan, have made him a
target, specifically in Uzbekistan. (Id. at 10–12). For example, in 2023 Mkrtchyan claims
that he was approached by Ulugbek Shadmanov, an Uzbek businessman and principal
shareholder of United Cement Group (“UCG”), who tried to convince Mkrtchyan to
1 All of the facts in this Section are taken from Mkrtchyan’s Memorandum of Law in
support of his Request for Judicial Assistance. (Dkt. No. 2).
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 12

3
“leverage his connections in the United States [i.e. Pompeo and Shannon] to put certain
Uzbek citizens on the U.S. sanctions list.” (Id. at 11). When Mkrtchyan refused to help,
Shadmanov threatened his business prospects in Uzbekistan and arranged for his
unlawful detention by the Uzbek government in January 2024. (Id.); (Dkt. No. 3 at 5).
During this months-long detention, Mkrtchyan alleges officials “confined him to a small
cell, repeatedly interrogated him, denied him access to medication and other necessities,
and attempted unsuccessfully to extract money and false confessions from him.” (Dkt.
No. 2 at 11–12).
After some time, however, Mkrtchyan’s detention was ended after his former
business partner and Texas businessman Stephen Payne personally wrote a letter to the
President of Uzbekistan calling for Mkrtchyan’s release. (Id. at 12). According to this
letter, “[t]he true reason behind [the detention] is a conflict between Mr. Ovik Mkrtchyan
on one hand, and . . . Mr. Shadmanov Ulugbek [sic] . . . on the other.” (Dkt. No. 3-2 at 2).
Payne’s letter recounted the details of Shadmanov’s corrupt request and urged the Uzbek
president to intervene in Mkrtchyan’s detention. (Id. at 2–4). This seemed to work as
Mkrtchyan was released in April 2024. (Dkt. No. 2 at 12).
B. THE DEFAMATION CAMPAIGN CHAPTER
Following his release, Shadmanov allegedly continued his campaign against
Mkrtchyan. Beginning in July 2024, several online articles were posted that disparaged
Mkrtchyan and accused him of corruption. (Id. at 12–13). These included articles posted
by The London Post and Radha Stirling, a U.S.-based public relations consultant. (Id.).
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 12

4
In addition, two more letters were sent to the Uzbek president with accusations
that seemed to mirror the online posts. (Id. at 13–14). One letter was sent by Stephen
Akard, a partner at an American law and public affairs firm, on behalf of Shadmanov and
UCG. (Id. at 13). It claimed that UCG had retained a “preeminent U.S. corporate
investigatory firm” to dispute allegations made against Shadmanov. (Id.). The letter
went on to make allegedly false claims about Uktam Aripov, a business associate of
Mkrtchyan, and accused Mkrtchyan of engaging in extortion and having ties to Russian
organized crime. (Id.). Another letter was sent by Stephen Payne, who apparently
retracted the statements he made on behalf of Mkrtchyan in his first letter, which made
similar allegations. (Id. at 14).
According to Mkrtchyan, the corporate investigatory firm responsible for all of
these libelous documents was Straife LLC. (Id. at 13–17). Straife is a U.S. consulting firm
that has worked with Mkrtchyan and Gor for many years, rendering over $100,000 in
services for the company. (Id. at 11). Notably, it worked with Mkrtchyan regarding his
detention in Uzbekistan. (Id.). Both Straife and its CEO Joseph Fleming are located in
Houston, Texas. (Dkt. Nos. 4-1, 4-9). For reasons that are unclear, Straife and Fleming
apparently betrayed Mkrtchyan and orchestrated a public relations campaign meant to
disparage and libel him.
In April 2025, Mkrtchyan responded by bringing libel claims against The London
Post and Stirling in the High Court of Justice, Kings Bench Division in England. (Id. at
14). These claims allege that the defendants conspired with Straife and other unknown
actors as part of a libel campaign against Mkrtchyan and seek damages and other
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 12

5
injunctive relief. (Id. at 15). Mkrtchyan has also indicated that he is contemplating
bringing other claims in England related to these events. (Dkt. No. 2 at 16). To effectively
prosecute these claims Mkrtchyan filed an action with this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1782
seeking discovery for use in the pending and contemplated actions in English court.2
(Dkt. No. 1).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, a district court may order a person who resides or is found in the district
“to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a
proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations
conducted before formal accusation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). One way that this happens is
when “a foreign or international tribunal” or “any interested person” requests that the
district court award such discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Id. Section 1782(a) “aims to provide efficient assistance to parties litigating
in foreign tribunals and, by example, to encourage foreign assistance in U.S. Courts.”
Banca Pueyo SA v. Lone Star Fund IX (US), L.P., 55 F.4th 469, 473 (5th Cir. 2022).
Section 1782 has three statutory elements: (1) the discovery is sought from an
individual located in the district in which the application is filed; (2) the discovery is for
use in a legal proceeding before a foreign tribunal; and (3) the applicant is a foreign or
international tribunal or an “interested person.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
2 Mkrtchyan filed a similar Section 1782 application in this District in June 2025 to obtain
discovery from Payne and his affiliated corporations. See Mkrtchyan v. Payne, No. 4:25-MC-01122.
Another court in this District granted that application. (Mkrtchyan v. Payne, No. 4:25-MC-01122
Dkt. No. 7).
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 12

6
Because courts are not required to grant a Section 1782 discovery application just
because it has the authority to do so, courts also address four discretionary factors known
as the “Intel factors.” See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264–65,
124 S.Ct. 2466, 2482–84, 159 L.Ed.2d 355 (2004). These factors include: (1) whether the
respondent is a participant in the foreign proceeding; (2) the nature of the foreign
tribunal, the “character” of the foreign proceedings, and the receptivity of the foreign
court to U.S. federal court assistance; (3) whether the request attempts to circumvent
foreign proof-gathering restrictions; and (4) whether the request is “unduly intrusive or
burdensome.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court first addresses the statutory factors of Section 1782 and then the Intel
factors. Because all factors weigh in Mkrtchyan’s favor, the Court grants his Request for
Judicial Assistance.
A. STATUTORY FACTORS
First, Mkrtchyan must show that Straife, Hyperfocal, and Fleming are all located
within the Southern District of Texas. According to Straife’s website, it maintains an
office at 1250 Wood Branch Park Dr. #410 Houston, TX 77079. (Dkt. No. 4-1) (Dkt. No. 4-
4). It has also registered with the Texas Secretary of State using that same address. (Dkt.
No. 4-7). Hyperfocal’s website also indicates that it has a Houston office at the same
address as Straife. (Dkt. No. 5). This address was also used by Hyperfocal when it filed
its Registration Statement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. (Dkt. No. 4-2).
Hyperfocal used a different Houston address when it registered with the Texas Secretary
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 12

7
of State. (Dkt. No. 4-8) (stating that Hyperfocal’s mailing address is “950 Threadneedle
Street, Suite 120, Houston, Texas 77079”). Given this, the Court is satisfied that both
Straife and Hyperfocal are located within the Southern District of Texas.
The Court also finds that Fleming is located within the Southern District of Texas.
Mkrtchyan has filed a sworn declaration stating that “[o]n information and belief,
Fleming resides in Fort Bend County or another County within the Southern District of
Texas.” (Dkt. No. 3 at 2). Fleming’s contact page on Straife’s website also indicates that
he is located in Houston. (Dkt. No. 4-9).
Second, the discovery sought must be for use before a foreign tribunal.
Proceedings before the foreign tribunal may be pending or “within reasonable
contemplation.” Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 259, 124 S.Ct. at 2480. “The burden imposed on
the applicant” to show that the discovery sought is for use in foreign proceedings “is de
minimis.” In re Application of HydroDive Nigeria, Ltd., No. 4:13-MC-00477, 2013 WL
12155021, at *3 (S.D. Tex. May 29, 2013). Applicants “may seek discovery of any materials
that can be made use of in the foreign proceeding to increase [its] chances of success.”
Eni Ghana Expl. & Prod. Ltd. V. Gaffney Cline & Assocs., Inc., No. 4:22-MC-01285, 2022 WL
3156224, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2022) (quoting Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291, 297 (2d Cir.
2015)).
Mkrtchyan’s claims against The London Post and Stirling in the English High Court
of Justice, King’s Bench Division, (Dkt. Nos. 5-1–5-4),—as well as any future English
claims related to the alleged conspiracy against him—are certainly within Section 1782’s
meaning of “a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” Further, the discovery
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 7 of 12

8
he seeks is sufficiently related to those proceedings. In his Memorandum of Law in
support of his Request for Judicial Assistance, Mkrtchyan states that discovery is
necessary to support his claim of “an ongoing campaign by individuals and entities
around the world to injure [him] tortiously and by unlawful means.” (Dkt. No. 2 at 5).
This alleged campaign includes the publication of articles attacking Mkrtchyan by The
London Post and Stirling at the direction of Straife, Fleming, and Hyperfocal. (Dkt. Nos.
2 at 12–17, 5 at 4–5) (“His case is that [The London Post and Stirling] were aided, funded
and/or encouraged to publish by others involved in the Campaign [potentially including
Straife, Fleming, and Hyperfocal].”).
Finally, Mkrtchyan must be an “interested person” under Section 1782. As a
litigant in the English cases, he is undoubtedly an interested person. Intel Corp., 542 U.S.
at 256, 124 S.Ct. at 2478 (“No doubt litigants are included among, and may be the most
common example of, the “interested person[s]” who may invoke § 1782.”). The statutory
factors of Section 1782 have thus been met.
B. INTEL FACTORS
The first Intel factor, whether the person from whom discovery is sought is a
participant in the foreign proceedings, weighs in favor of granting Mkrtchyan’s Request.
Section 1782 is not normally appropriate when discovery is sought from a participant in
a foreign proceeding because “[a] foreign tribunal has jurisdiction over those appearing
before it, and can itself order them to produce evidence.” Id. at 264, 124 S.Ct. at 2483.
None of the individuals or entities from whom discovery is sought here, however, are
participants in the English proceedings. As such, they “may be outside the foreign
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 8 of 12

9
tribunal’s jurisdictional reach; hence, their evidence, available in the United States, may
be unobtainable absent § 1782(a) aid.” Id. While it is possible that The London Post and
Stirling may have the evidence sought in Mkrtchyan’s Request, it does not appear that
any such evidence has been produced in the English proceedings yet. See Eni Ghana, 2022
WL 3156224, at *4; In re Application of HydroDive Nigeria, Ltd., 2013 WL 12155021, at *4
(“Section 1782 does not require [an applicant] to seek discovery in the foreign jurisdiction
before seeking the assistance of a district court.”).
The second factor concerns whether the foreign tribunal is receptive to U.S. federal
court judicial assistance. Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264, 124 S.Ct. at 2483. Courts must
“analyze whether there has been a ‘clear directive’ from the foreign tribunal that it ‘would
reject evidence’ produced in the United States.” See Eni Ghana, 2022 WL 3156224, at *4
(quoting Ecuadorian Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corp., 619 F.3d 373, 377 (5th Cir. 2010)). “A clear
directive generally derives from ‘authoritative proof—in the form of a judicial, executive,
or legislative declaration—that the foreign jurisdiction would be hostile to such
evidence.’” Id. (quoting LEG Q LLC v. RSR Corp., No. 3:17-CV-01559, 2017 WL 2780213,
at *9 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017)).
The U.K. has not given such a clear directive. In fact, U.S. courts “routinely find
that courts in the United Kingdom . . . are [] receptive to Section 1782 discovery.” In re
BM Brazil 1 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistrategia, No. 1:23-MC-00208, 2024
WL 555780, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2024), report and recommendation adopted sub nom., In
re BM Brazil 1 Fundo De Investimento EM Participacoes Multistrategia, 2024 WL 554302
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2024); see also LEG Q LLC, 2017 WL 3780213, at *9 (finding a lack of “a
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 9 of 12

10
clear directive or authoritative proof that the English High Court would reject evidence
obtained with the aid of section 1782”); Application of Sarrio S.A. for Assistance Before
Foreign Tribunals, 173 F.R.D. 190, 197 (S.D. Tex. 1995) (“[A] decision of England’s highest
judicial body, expressly approved a private litigant’s use of section 1782 to gather
evidence in the United States for use in English proceedings.”); Frasers Group PLC v.
Gorman, No. 1:23-MC-00348, WL 2023 WL 6938284, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2023)
(“England is generally receptive to § 1782 discovery requests.”). Given this, the second
factor also weighs in favor of granting Mkrtchyan’s Request.
The third factor considers “whether the § 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to
circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or
the United States.” Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 265, 124 S.Ct. at 2483. “[C]oncerns of comity
do not permit the Court to ‘insert[] a generally applicable foreign discoverability rule into
the text of § 1782.’” Eni Ghana, 2022 WL 3156224, at *5 (quoting Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at
261, 124 S.Ct. at 2481). However, “while the court should not base its § 1782(a) decision
on whether this discovery would be allowed in [the foreign country], it may consider [the
foreign country’s] restrictions and whether this request is an attempt to thwart those
restrictions.” In re Application of RSM Prod. Corp. v. Noble Energy, Inc., 195 F.Supp.3d 899,
906 (S.D. Tex. June 27, 2016).
At this ex parte stage there is no indication that Mkrtchyan is attempting to
circumvent English discoverability rules. Mkrtchyan’s English counsel has stated in a
sworn affidavit that “[t]he Application is [] consistent with English and Welsh law and
public policy.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 7). Further, given the general receptiveness of English
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 10 of 12

11
courts to Section 1782 applications, it appears unlikely that Mkrtchyan’s Request is an
attempt to evade English law. He has also indicated that he does not seek privileged
information under English law and that he would be amenable to Straife, Fleming, and
Hyperfocal providing privilege logs consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
if necessary. (Dkt. No. 2 at 26). The third factor weighs in favor of granting the Request.
The final factor concerns the intrusive and burdensome nature of the discovery
requests. In determining whether a request is overbroad, the Fifth Circuit has explained
that the normal discovery rules under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 apply. See Tex.
Keystone, Inc. v. Prime. Nat. Res., Inc., 64 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2012).
Mkrtchyan’s requests are not overbroad. His subpoenas make the same seven
requests for documents in Respondent’s possession related to the alleged conspiracy
involving them and the defendants in his English claims. (Dkt. Nos. 6-2–6-4). These
requests are narrowed and focus specifically on obtaining documents related to Straife’s
involvement with Mkrtchyan including its role in attempting to defame him through
publications by Stirling and The London Post and its involvement in the unlawful
detention affair in Uzbekistan. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 6-2 at 6–7). The request to depose
Fleming is also not overbroad given his involvement in Mkrtchyan’s alleged conspiracy
and complete ownership of Straife. (See Dkt. No. 2 at 5, 8) (“Fleming personally worked
on some of Gor’s most sensitive and important matters, including Mkrtchyan’s unlawful
detention in Uzbekistan from January-April 2024.”). Regardless, any concerns involving
the breadth of the subpoenas “can properly be addressed through the mechanisms,
including objections and motions, specifically provided by Rule 45” after they have been
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 11 of 12

12
served. LEG Q LLC, 2017 WL 3780213, at *13. Therefore, all four Intel factors weigh in
favor of granting Mkrtchyan’s Request.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Mkrtchyan’s Request for Judicial
Assistance. He may therefore issue and serve the subpoenas attached to his Request as
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4, together with a copy of this Order, in a manner consistent with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It Is SO ORDERED.
Signed on November 17, 2025.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-mc-01950 Document 7 Filed on 11/17/25 in TXSD Page 12 of 12