Group items tagged

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.

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]

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

Pre-Hearing Discovery From Non-Party To An Arbitration Disallowed.The Second Circuit has held that Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorize an arbitrator to compel pre-hearing document discovery from non-parties to an arbitration.  Life Receivables Trust v. Syndicate 102, 549 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2008).  Reversing the district court’s grant of a motion to enforce a discovery subpoena, the court of appeals concluded that documents are discoverable in arbitration proceedings only when brought before the arbitrators by a testifying witness.  The court declined to find exceptions for either closely-related entities or for parties to the arbitration agreement that are not parties to the arbitration itself.  In reaching this result, the Second Circuit followed the Third Circuit, but split with the Eighth Circuit.

Discovery On Behalf Of Foreign Tribunals Does Not Encompass Arbitrations.The Southern District of Texas has held that 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes a district court to order persons residing in the district to give discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,” does not encompass private, international arbitration proceedings.  La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelecctrica Del Rio Lempa v. El Paso Corp., No. H-08-335, 2008 WL 5070119 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008).  The court declined to follow the other district courts that have held to the contrary.  In holding section 1782 inapplicable, the court noted that arbitration is intended as a speedy and economical means of dispute resolution, and that extensive discovery through federal courts would harm international comity.