Group items tagged

"In a number of recent rulings, US courts have interpreted the scope of 28 U.S.C. s. 1782 (...). These rulings, which all resulted in dismissing s.1782 applications, may suggest a growing trend towards narrowly interpreting the statute."

Mealey's Litig. Rep. Reinsurance, Vol. 19, Issue 22 (March 20, 2009), p. 14

The Fifth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals last week reaffirmed its position that 28 U. S. C. 1782, which provides for federal assistance in obtaining discovery for use in foreign and international tribunals, does not apply to private commercial arbitration tribunals. El Paso Corp. v. La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica del Rio Lempa, 2009 U. S. App. LEXIS 17596 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009).

24-8 Mealey's Intl. Arb. Rep. 7 (2009), Volume 24, Issue #8 (August 2009) -- NEW ORLEANS - The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 6 affirmed a district court's ruling granting reconsideration and vacating an order granting an ex parte application to obtain discovery to be used in a private international arbitration in relation to disputes over a contract to construct a power plant and provide power in El Salvador (El Paso Corporation v. La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica Del Rio Lempa, et al., No. 08-20771, 5th Cir.; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17596).

Mealey's International Arbitration Report, Volume 24, Issue 8, August 2009, p. 8 -- ORLANDO, Fla. - A Florida federal judge on Aug. 4 refused to adopt a portion of a magistrate judge's recommendation that the court order discovery for use in an arbitration proceeding over franchise rights in Mexico, finding that the private arbitral panel did not qualify as a foreign or international tribunal under 28 U.S. Code Section 1782 (In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico S.A. DE C.V., No. 6:09-cv-383-Orl-22GJK, M.D. Fla.; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68091)

Note on El Paso Corporation v. La Comision Ejecutiva, No. 08-20771 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009) where the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that section 1782 does not apply for a discovery motion for use in a private international arbitration (arbitration in Geneva under the UNCITRAL Arb. Rules)

Note on El Paso Corporation v. La Comision Ejecutiva, No. 08-20771 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009) in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that section 1782 does not apply for a discovery motion for use in a private international arbitration (arbitration in Geneva under the UNCITRAL Arb. Rules)

March 17, 2009 - Daniel Schimmel (Partner) and Melissa E. Byroade (Associate) for Kelley Drye; PDF download (Manuskript); Publikation in: International Arbitration 2009, Volume 1, published by the Practising Law Institute "The chapter focuses on Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code and international arbitration. It addresses the questions: "First, do international arbitration tribunals with a foreign situs constitute 'foreign tribunals' within the meaning of § 1782?.... Second, is § 1782 actually helpful to international arbitration?" The authors also discuss the Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. case and its impact on subsequent decisions regarding "foreign discoverability" requirements."

Daniel Schimmel (Kelley Drye), PLI, International Arbitration 2009 (March 2009) - PDF einer kurzen Powerpoint-Präsentation; nichts Neues

Oliver L. Knöfel, Journal of Private International Law, Volume 5, Number 2, August 2009, pp. 281-309 Abstract: Until today, a variety of mechanisms of State courts assisting foreign arbitral tribunals in the taking of evidence has been developed in international legal practice. Unfortunately, none of the legal avenues nowadays available to arbitrators presents a coherent or convincing picture. One has to explore a wealth of diverse and scattered sources when an arbitral tribunal needs or wishes to obtain evidence abroad. What is more, it is often considered excessive to oblige a State to lend assistance to arbitral proceedings held outside its own territory. In 2004, however, the US Supreme Court decided to examine the concept of "tribunal" as used in 28 U.S.C. section 1782 under a functional lens. In the wake of this decision several US District Courts have been reading section 1782 to authorise subpoenas in aid of foreign arbitrations. The new US jurisprudence offers a unique opportunity to reinvent the US-German relationship under the Hague Evidence Convention of 1970. This article aims at broadening the scope of international judicial assistance in its entirety. The plan is to begin by exploring the legal avenues by which arbitral panels can obtain evidence abroad and seek judicial assistance of foreign States' courts de lege lata. Then the impact of the newly established, arbitration-friendly US case-law on judicial assistance as granted under 28 U.S.C. section 1782 will be studied. Finally, the new US jurisprudence will be used as the basis to argue for a different attitude towards arbitration proceedings than that now prevailing under the Hague Evidence Convention of 1970 and under the European Evidence Regulation of 2001. Both instruments should be interpreted to encompass international arbitral tribunals.

In re an Arbitration in London, England between Northfolk Southern Corp. et al v. ACE Bermuda LTD (Northern District Ill., June 15, 2009). -- With link to fulltext PDF of the decision

Marubeni America Corporation v. LBA Y.K., Case No. 08-3282 (2d Cir., June 17, 2009)

Note on In re Arbitration in London, England between Norfolk Southern Corp. et al. and Ace Bermuda Ltd., No. 1:09-cv-03092 (N.D. Ill. Jun 15, 2009) (An appeal from that decision is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit)

Vincent M. de Grandpré, Obtaining U.S. Discovery in Aid of Canadian Litigation, Commercial Litigation Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 2009

Skadden 2009 Insights, p. 99, Contributor: Timothy G. Nelson

by Lucy Reed for Freshfields, Feb 3, 2009

by Abram I. Moore (Chicago) - Note on El Paso Corp. v. La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica Del Rio Lempa (5th Cir. Aug 6, 2009) and the two district court decisions in In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico, S.A. de C. V. (Fla.) and In re An Arbitration in London, England (Ill.)

Kurzer Überblick bis Babcock und Comision Ejecutiva (Mai 2009)

Apr 30, 2009, by Sion Richards and Harriet Territt (Jones Day via Mondaq) - "In proceedings before the English courts, there are specific rules of civil procedure that can be used to obtain discovery from U.S.-based persons who are not directly involved in the litigation. However, it is often the case that a direct application to the U.S. courts for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 will be quicker and will give rise to a wider scope of disclosure."