Group items tagged

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.

Marks & Sokolov Article | United States Law Office Philadelphia Pennsylvania | Russian Law Office Moscow | Ukraine Law Office Kyiv

by Stuart M. Riback (Siller Wilk LLP), prepared for the American Bar Association Business Law Section Spring Meeting 2007

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.

Dec. 30, 2008 - Basics (zudem veraltet)

by Adward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, New York Law Journal, Aug 7, 2008

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

Sofia E. Biller and Howard S. Suskin, March 19, 2009

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."

"In competition complaint matter before EC Commission, U.S. Supreme Court holds that target of complaint is "interested person" under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 on international judicial assistance and that Congress did not intend to impose foreign-discoverability limitation as bar to obtaining documents in records of federal court where target was litigant."

June 25, 2008 -- Review of Roz Trading

by Charles Owen Verrill Jr

"Affirming for the first time that section 1782 applications extend to treaty arbitrations, a New York court has allowed Chevron to access 600 hours of unreleased footage from a 2009 documentary film, to be used as evidence in an arbitration with Ecuador and other legal proceedings."