Skip to main content

Home/ 28 USC § 1782/ Group items tagged 28-USC-1782

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Lars Bauer

Protecting Against Discovery Demands Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 | by Kevin M. Dec... - 0 views

www.briggs.com/-under-28-usc--1782-07-10-2009

28-USC-1782 arbitration defenses

shared by Lars Bauer on 20 Aug 09 - Cached
  • A disturbing trend in private arbitrations is the use of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to compel discovery through federal court subpoenas.
  • Subpoenaed companies and individuals have ample defenses to protect against such costly, intrusive, and often untoward schemes.
  • The Roz court curiously read Intel to have changed the landscape, even though the Supreme Court’s decision did not and had no reason to consider § 1782’s use in private arbitrations.  Even more surprising is that other courts have embraced the Roz rationale over the well-reasoned holdings of the Second and Fifth Circuits.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • A § 1782 target’s first defense should be the NBC and Biedermann precedents, which remain good law.
  • If anything, the Supreme Court’s statutory analysis bolstered the tying of § 1782 demands to foreign-government-related proceedings.
  • Additionally, there are serious constitutional problems with § 1782.  Article III to the Constitution strictly limits federal court jurisdiction to legal disputes either “arising under” federal law, based upon certain party characteristics (e.g., diversity of citizenship), or turning upon maritime or admiralty causes of action.  With § 1782, however, the statute purports to grant jurisdiction regardless of Article III considerations,
  • Although the federal courts have not yet spoken on this defense, it is apparent that § 1782 jurisdiction lacks a solid constitutional basis.
  • Finally, § 1782 applications are granted as a matter of judicial discretion.
  • In sum, there is no reason to surrender to a § 1782 discovery request.
Lars Bauer

Born: More Uncertainty about § 1782's Extension to International Arbitral Pro... - 0 views

kluwerarbitrationblog.com/...rnational-arbitral-proceedings

law arbitration discovery 28-USC-1782 Winning-Case case-notes

shared by Lars Bauer on 12 Jun 10 - Cached
  • While the court in Chevron said little else about the applicability of § 1782, an opinion issued by a federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of Florida one week before, in In re Winning (HK) Shipping Co. Ltd., offered a detailed approach to determining whether a private international arbitral tribunal is a foreign tribunal that qualifies for judicial assistance under § 1782. Specifically, the court in Winning discussed a functional test for determining whether an international arbitral tribunal qualifies as a foreign tribunal under § 1782.
  • The Winning opinion is yet another addition to the growing body of conflicting case law on whether, and if so when, judicial assistance under § 1782 is available to parties in international arbitral proceedings – a body of conflicting case law that ultimately will need to be clarified by the federal appellate courts and possibly by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • should analyze, among other things, whether the tribunal: (1) has the ability to gather evidence; (2) is obligated to apply the law to the facts in an impartial manner; (3) has the authority to issue a binding decision; (4) will issue opinions that are judicially reviewable; and (5) is state-sponsored or purely private.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • the issue of whether a decision is judicially reviewable is of decisive importance
  • the Winning court concluded that “to the extent the arbitration forum at issue is subject to the Arbitration Act 1996 (of England) or . . . the rules of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, Winning is proceeding before a ‘foreign tribunal.’”
  • Under the functional test applied by the Winning and Operadora courts, only private arbitrations sited in jurisdictions where awards can be judicially reviewed qualify as “foreign tribunals” under § 1782. It is not clear, however, when exactly an arbitral award can be said to be judicially reviewable for the purpose of this functional test.
  • the current variance in opinions on the applicability of § 1782 to international arbitration suggests that it is unlikely that a uniform approach will emerge any time in the near future.
  • strengthens the case for why the federal appellate courts – and, if a circuit split emerges, the U.S. Supreme Court – should address sooner rather than later whether, and if so when, § 1782 extends to cover proceedings before international arbitral tribunals.
  • Lars Bauer on 12 Jun 10
     
    Note by Gary Born (WilmerHale) on Application of Winning (HK) Shipping Co. Ltd., 2010 WL 1796579 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010)
Lars Bauer

Denial of Section 1782 Discovery Based on District Court's Discretion Highlights Differ... - 1 views

blog.internationalpractice.org/?p=1361

28-USC-1782 case-notes law discovery

shared by Lars Bauer on 17 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Caratube involved a § 1782 petition by the oil company directed at persons and entities in the U.S., which Caratube claimed had information helpful to its prosecution of an international arbitration before ICSID (the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes).  The ICSID tribunal declined to ask Caratube to cease and desist the § 1782 discovery requests.  It did say that it didn’t want the U.S. discovery petition to interfere with the arbitration, and the tribunal reserved on the question whether to admit documents obtained through the § 1782 petition.
  • In the § 1782 proceeding, the District Court exercised its discretion to deny the § 1782 request.
  • the District Court relied on several of the considerations articulated in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004).
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • It found that uncertainty about whether ICSID would accept the documents weighed against granting the discovery and further believed that the nature of the ICSID proceeding – arising by reason of a bilateral investment treaty between the U.S. and Kazakhstan – somehow put the court in a position of possibly interfering with the “parties’ bargained-for expectations concerning the arbitration process”.  The District Court did not analyze whether the ability to get U.S. discovery under § 1782 formed a part of the parties’ expectations in the first place. 
  • The Court was moved by the fact that Caratube had outlined the discovery it thought was necessary in the arbitration and apparently did not include a § 1782 request.
  • Indeed, the Rules of the International Bar Association, which the District Court found persuasive authority as a guideline giving indications regarding the relevant criteria for what documents may be requested and ordered to be produced, says specifically that a party should “take whatever steps are legally available to obtain the requested documents”.  Although the IBA rules suggest that that request go to the arbitral panel, in the U.S. there is a statute that permits the party going directly to the third-party with the documents using the vehicle of a § 1782 petition.
  • In the end the District Court was concerned that Caratube was attempting to “circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States”. 
  • Lars Bauer on 17 Apr 11
     
    In re Application of Caratube, 10-0285 (D.D.C. 2010) [730 F.Supp. 2d 101]
Lars Bauer

District Court Rejects Use Of Section 1782 In Aid Of ICC Arbitration - 0 views

www.lexisnexis.com/...in-aid-of-icc-arbitration.aspx

28-USC-1782 discovery arbitration cases

shared by Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11
     
    "In In Re Rhodianyl S.A.S. and Rhodia Operations S.A.S., No. 11-1026-JTM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72918 (D. Kan. March 25, 2011), the District of Kansas held that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 ("Section 1782") could not be used to seek discovery from a party to a foreign international arbitration. In its key holding, the court found that a purely private international arbitral tribunal did not constitute a "tribunal" within the meaning of Section 1782."
Lars Bauer

EXTRADITION AND FOREIGN EVIDENCE: 28 USC 1782: Swiss party can use to obtain evidence - 0 views

obtainingforeignevidence.blogspot.com/...82-swiss-party-can-use-to.html

28-USC-1782 discovery decisions Weber_Finker

shared by Lars Bauer on 17 Jan 09 - Cached
Lars Bauer liked it
  • The Appellants are shareholders in Itera Group, Ltd., a Cypriot corporation, who all reside in Jacksonville, Florida (“Florida shareholders”).
  • The Florida shareholders appeal the Magistrate Judge’s April 15, 2008 Order granting in part and denying in part Galina Weber’s Motion to Compel Discovery, and thedistrict court’s May 20, 2008 affirmance of that Order.
  • Weber is a citizen of Switzerland and a resident of Monaco. Like the Florida shareholders, she is a shareholder of Itera Group.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Weber is involved with two separate foreign legal actions. Both involve business transactions with Itera Group. Weber is the plaintiff in a Cypriot civil action. She is also the defendant in a Swiss criminal action, which Itera instituted against her, alleging that she received property embezzled from the company.
  • Weber filed a civil lawsuit in Cyprus against Itera Group, the CEO of Itera Group, Igor V. Makarov, and Sweet Water Intervest Corporation, which is a British Virgin Islands corporation that Weber alleges is controlled by Makarov.
  • After Weber instituted the Cypriot action, Gas Itera, an Itera Group subsidiary, filed criminal charges against Weber in Switzerland, alleging that Weber embezzled Itera Group assets.
  • The Supreme Court held in Intel that discovery under § 1782 is not limited to discovery that would be allowed under United States law “in domestic litigation analogous to the foreign proceeding.” See Intel, 542 U.S. at 263, 124 S. Ct. at 2483.
  • Lars Bauer on 17 Jan 09
     
    The Eleventh Circuit in Weber v Finker ruled that a Swiss national can use 28 USC 1782, and is not limited to the Swiss-US mutual legal assistance treaty, for purposes of obtaining evidence in Swiss proceedings, which include a Swiss criminal proceeding.
Lars Bauer

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Allow U.S. Courts to Order Discovery for Use in Private... - 0 views

www.kelleydrye.com/...0478

28-USC-1782 arbitration articles

shared by Lars Bauer on 16 May 09 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 16 May 09
     
    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."
Lars Bauer

[PDF] The Unequal Playing Field: Companies Subject to Section 1782 in International Arb... - 0 views

www.fulbright.com/...BenchmarkLit2009.pdf

28-USC-1782 arbitration articles

shared by Lars Bauer on 08 Mar 09 - No Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 08 Mar 09
     
    Fulbright & Jaworski LLP. Abstract: "Some parties to international arbitration proceedings have recently applied to courts in the US pursuant to § 1782 of Title 28 of the US Code to obtain discovery in "aid" of arbitration. The following discussion briefly addresses section 1782 and its applicability in international arbitration proceedings, issues that might arise as a result of section 1782 filings made in international arbitrations and ways to alleviate these issues."
Lars Bauer

Fifth Circuit Rules on Section 1782 Discovery Motion for International Arbitration Case... - 0 views

www.karlbayer.com/blog

28-USC-1782 arbitration case-notes

shared by Lars Bauer on 19 Aug 09 - Cached
  • The court noted that in Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann International, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999), the court held that “a ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of § 1782 did not include a private international arbitral tribunal, and thus § 1782 did not apply to discovery sought for use in such a tribunal.”
  • the Fifth Circuit was not persuaded by CEL’s argument.  The Court concluded that the issue of whether a private international arbitration tribunal  qualifies as a “tribunal” under § 1782 was not before the U.S. Supreme Court in Intel.
  • Accordingly, the court denied El Paso’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot and affirmed the district court’s grant of the Rule 60(b) motion.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • In  El Paso Corporation v. La Comision Ejecutiva, (No. 08-20771) (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009), La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica Del Rio Lempa (”CEL”) is a state-owned utility company in El Salvador and Nejapa Power Company (”NPC”) is a utility company related to  El Paso Corporation (”El Paso”), an  energy corporation based in Houston, Texas.
  • Lars Bauer on 19 Aug 09
     
    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)
  • Lars Bauer on 19 Aug 09
     
    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)
Lars Bauer

Judicial Assistance in the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Aid of Arbitration: A... - 0 views

www.ingentaconnect.com/...art00004

arbitration evidence legal-assistance 28-USC-1782 germany usa

shared by Lars Bauer on 08 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 08 Sep 09
     
    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.
Lars Bauer

US courts interpret the scope of 28 U.S.C. s1782 | Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garr... - 0 views

arbitration.practicallaw.com/7-422-4955

28-USC-1782 cases arbitration

shared by Lars Bauer on 21 Oct 09 - No Cached
  • The court found that the source of the ICC panel's authority (private agreement between the parties) and its purpose, as an alternative to governmental or state-sponsored proceedings, militate against classifying it as a foreign or international tribunal.
  • on 1 August 2009, in In Re Application of Operadora DB Mexico, 6:09 CV 383 (M.D. Fl. 2009)
  • On 3 August 2009, in Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica del Rio Lempa v. Nejapa Power Company, No. 08-3518 (3rd Cir. 2009)
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • On 6 August 2009, in El Paso Corporation v. La Comision Ejecutiva, No. 08-20771 (5th Cir. 2009)
  • held that a private arbitral tribunal constituted under the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration (ICC) does not qualify as a foreign or international tribunal under § 1782
  • Lars Bauer on 21 Oct 09
     
    "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."
Lars Bauer

Judge Finds Panel Does Not Qualify As Foreign Tribunal Under Section 1782 (Operadora DB... - 0 views

www.mealeysonline.com/...articleSearch.do

28-USC-1782 arbitration cases Operadora

shared by Lars Bauer on 27 Aug 09 - Cached
  • Judge Finds Panel Does Not Qualify As Foreign Tribunal Under Section 1782, ORLANDO, Fla. -, Mealey's International Arbitration Report, August 2009, 24-8 Mealey's Intl. Arb. Rep. 8 (2009), Volume 24, Issue #8
  • Lars Bauer on 27 Aug 09
     
    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)
Lars Bauer

Federal District Court Refuses to Enforce Subpoena for Foreign Insurance Arbitration (A... - 0 views

insurancecoverage.typepad.com/...e-to-private-arbitrations.html

28-usc-1782 arbitration case-notes cases

shared by Lars Bauer on 30 Jun 09 - Cached
  • The named insured and named party in a London reinsurance arbritration requested that the district court order a non-party witness to testify in the arbitration.
  • The non-party argued that the scope of 28 U.S.C. §1782 was limited to only governmental entities.
  • While the District Court conceded that the court’s powers under 28 U.S.C. §1782 have been expanded over the past several years, the Intel decision did not specifically reference private arbitrations as one of those areas in which the statute granted authority.  The District Court, therefore, declined to follow several subsequent decisions which interpreted the Intel decision to apply to private arbitrations.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • The court distinguished between "state-sponsored arbitral bodies" (i.e. UNCITRAL) and "purely private arbitrations." In so doing, it adopted the minority position on the issue.
  • Lars Bauer on 30 Jun 09
     
    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
Lars Bauer

Applied Discovery | Law: Case Summary Alert - 0 views

www.applieddiscovery.com/ws_display.asp?filter=Monthly_Case_Summary_Alert_Detail&item_id=%7B86D0C8FA%2D616F%2D486E%2DB45B%2D8529093F6F90%7D&source_filter=Monthly%5FCase%5FSummary%5FAlert&bookmark={86D0C8FA-616F-486E-B45B-8529093F6F90}&keyword=September%202011

28-USC-1782 discovery cases

shared by Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The Michael Wilson law firm had litigation underway in England and Australia against several of its former members or employees who allegedly breached their contractual and fiduciary duties to the firm when they left and took with them clients of the firm involved in mineral, oil and gas, and precious metal mining investment projects in Kazakhstan. Two of the clients were companies with headquarters in an office in Denver.
  • In order to obtain discovery of documents from the two companies in Colorado, the Wilson law firm applied for an Order of Judicial Assistance under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1782
  • The Wilson law firm's application (a copy is available here) was successful, but with one caveat. The court upheld a $500,000 cost bond imposed on the firm due to the cost of the discovery being sought, an earlier order for cost-sharing, and the freezing of certain assets of the firm. The Wilson firm argued that imposition of a pre-judgment cost bond as a condition for Section 1782 discovery was unprecedented, but the court held that a proceeding under Section 1782 was governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which vested the court "with considerable discretion to specify conditions and limits for discovery, particularly electronic discovery."
  • Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11
     
    In re Application of Michael Wilson and Partners, Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90954 (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2011)
Lars Bauer

Baker & McKenzie - 0 views

bakerxchange.com/...page=21

28-USC-1782 BakerMcKenzie Babcock-Borsig Comision-Ejecutiva

shared by Lars Bauer on 04 Feb 09 - Cached
  • Section 1782.  District court holds that Section 1782 discovery may be used in aid of private international arbitration.   In re: Application of Babcock Borsig AG for Assistance Before a Foreign Tribunal, Case No. 08-mc-10128-DPW (D. Mass. 2008) [click for opinion]
  • Section 1782.  District court holds that Section 1782 discovery may not be used in aid of private international arbitration.    La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelecctrica del Rio Lempa v. El Paso Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94395 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008) [click for opinion]
Lars Bauer

More U.S. Courts Permit Discovery in Aid of Foreign Arbitrations, But Texas D... - 0 views

www.klgates.com/...Detail.aspx

28-USC-1782 arbitration case-notes newsletters

shared by Lars Bauer on 02 Jul 09 - Cached
  • In the Summer 2007 edition of Arbitration World, we noted that, after Intel, federal courts in New Jersey (In re Oxus Gold) and Georgia (In re Roz Trading) had interpreted Section 1782 to apply to international arbitrations. Recently, courts in Minnesota, Massachusetts and Delaware have followed suit, while a court in Texas has disagreed.
  • Although the weight of post-Intel legal authority suggests that participants in foreign arbitrations can now successfully apply for discovery in the U.S. under Section 1782, there remains a conflict in the federal district courts. Until the scope of Section 1782 is clarified by Circuit Courts of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court, a party to foreign arbitration who hopes to discover evidence in the U.S. cannot predict with certainty whether it will meet the first requirement: a recognition of the arbitral body as a “tribunal.” However, based upon the recent trend, it is likely that this hurdle will be cleared – unless the evidence lies in Texas
  • Lars Bauer on 02 Jul 09
     
    by Abram I. Moore - short notes on Hallmark Capital, Babcock Borsig and the two decisions in Comision Ejecutiva (Delaware and Texas)
Lars Bauer

ICDR Conference Covers International ADR Issues - 0 views

www.adr.org/sp.asp

28-USC-1782 conferences

shared by Lars Bauer on 05 Feb 09 - Cached
  • The panel also discussed the implications of 28 USC 1782 for international arbitration. Robert Smit, of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, said "discovery should be available under 1782 in aid of foreign and international arbitration provided the discovery application is made or approved by the arbitral tribunal." Smit, chairman of the International Commercial Dispute Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, said the committee will soon issue a report on best practices vis-à-vis Section 1782 and international arbitration.
Lars Bauer

"Navigating Between German and US Discovery Provisions" - 0 views

patent-in-suit.com/?p=141

28-USC-1782 discovery USA Germany parallel-proceedings articles

shared by Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • I have a new article, written with my Silicon Valley colleague Tamara Fraizer, live now on IP360 (IP360 subscription required): http://www.law360.com/articles/270953/navigating-between-german-and-us-discovery-provisions
  • Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11
     
    The article discusses the interaction between the US law which provides for discovery in aid of foreign litigation (28 USC 1782), the recent 7th Circuit opinion interpreting that statute (the Biomet case), and German discovery proceedings.As we are increasingly seeing "parallel proceedings" in the United States and Germany, especially within the technology and biopharma realms, complex strategic choices are emerging.
Lars Bauer

United Kingdom, Litigation and Arbitration, Effective Use Of Discovery Obtain... - 0 views

www.mondaq.com/article.asp

28-USC-1782 USA UK civil-procedure arbitration discovery

shared by Lars Bauer on 30 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 30 Apr 09
     
    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."
Lars Bauer

Third Circuit Weighs In Chevron Ecuador Matter, Permitting § 1782 Discovery B... - 0 views

blog.internationalpractice.org/?p=1353

28-USC-1782 case-notes law discovery

shared by Lars Bauer on 17 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • In Re Chevron Corp., No. 10-2815 (3d Cir. Feb. 2011), involves a review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of a District Court’s order granting Chevron discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (see the discussion the use of U.S. discovery in international proceedings in our e-book, International Practice: Topics and Trends).
  • Lars Bauer on 17 Apr 11
     
    In Re Chevron Corp., No. 10-2815 (3d Cir. Feb. 2011)
Lars Bauer

Applying Intel to § 1782 Requests for Discovery in Arbitration | by Jessica W... - 2 views

DISCOVERING DISCRETION: APPLYING INTEL TO § 1782 REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY IN ARBITRATION by Jessica Weekley Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, Winter 2009, p.535

28-USC-1782 arbitration articles

started by Lars Bauer on 25 Aug 09 no follow-up yet
1 - 20 of 112 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page