Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc

1. Pursuant to r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the applicant's interlocutory application dated 1 June 2022 seeking orders for discovery pursuant to r 20.13 of Rules. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

CHEESEMAN J: 1 On 1 June 2022, the applicant, Shahriar Saffari, lodged an interlocutory application with the Registry for filing. The proposed interlocutory application seeks an order, in effect, for specific discovery from the fourth respondent, Rocco Braeuniger (as written): 1. Pursuant to Rule 20.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, The Court order that within a period fixed by the Court, the Fourth Respondent provide the following Information: a) The Name of the individual(s) that complained to Amazon regarding the Book. b) The town/city where the Complainant(s) reside. c) The relevant department within Amazon office in Sydney that divulged the Applicant's personal information to the complainant. 2 I made an order under r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the Registrar refuse to accept for filing the applicant's interlocutory application. These are my reasons for doing so. 3 Mr Saffari is a self-represented litigant who seeks leave to appeal from two interlocutory decisions dismissing proceedings commenced by him against four respondents in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia). A summary of the Circuit Court proceedings is included in my reasons for judgment in Saffari v Amazon.com, Inc [2022] FCA 535 at [11] - [23] (Saffari No 1). Familiarity with Saffari No 1 is assumed for the purpose of these reasons. Unless otherwise stated, defined terms within these reasons have the same meaning as in Saffari No 1. 4 The fourth respondent is an individual and a former director of Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd (ACS), having held that position between September 2017 and October 2019. ACS is not a party to the present proceedings in this Court and was not a party to the Circuit Court proceedings. 5 As mentioned, Mr Saffari seeks relief in the proposed interlocutory application which relies on r 20.13 to obtain an order in the nature of specific discovery from the fourth respondent in the context of proceedings concerning leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions of the Circuit Court. 6 Rule 20.11 provides that 'a party must not apply for an order for discovery unless the making of the order sought will facilitate the just resolution of the proceedings as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible'. This rule accords with the overarching purpose of the civil procedure provisions found in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and paragraph 10.2 of the Central Practice Note: National Court Framework and Case Management (CPN-1). 7 The proposed interlocutory application is not supported by an affidavit or other evidence. Generally, discovery at a late stage of proceedings, let alone at the appellate stage, does not make for the just, quick and efficient resolution of the proceedings. The documents sought by Mr Saffari, if they exist and are relevantly within the fourth respondent's control, appear to be documents, which I will assume for present purposes without deciding, that may have been relevant to the Circuit Court proceedings had they been in evidence below. However, the documents do not appear to be relevant to, or admissible on, the pending application before the Court for leave to appeal. 8 Based on my review of the proposed interlocutory application, and having regard to the nature of the proceedings in this Court, I am satisfied that to permit it to be filed will not facilitate the just resolution of the proceedings as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible and will not promote the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Act. 9 For these reasons, I will make an order directing the Registrar to refuse to accept the proposed interlocutory application for filing. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Cheeseman.