Skip to main content

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

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Lars Bauer

The Use of Evidence Obtained in US-American Discovery in International Civil ... - 0 views

www.kluwerlawonline.com/toc.php

28-usc-1782 arbitration evidence switzerland usa articles

shared by Lars Bauer on 30 Jun 09 - Cached
  • The Use of Evidence Obtained in US-American Discovery in International Civil Procedure Law and Arbitration in Switzerland [Müller-Chen] (238 KB)
  • Lars Bauer on 30 Jun 09
     
    "The gathering of evidence is a key element in legal proceedings. Contrary to the regulations in Switzerland, the US legal order allows for pre-trial discovery, i.e. the parties are entrusted with the collecting of evidence at an early stage. This diverging approach becomes relevant in civil proceedings or arbitral proceedings in Switzerland with a linkage to the USA. The question arises if and how parties may profit from the US-American discovery procedure. This paper wants to answer the question by examining the use of evidence gathered in US-American discovery in international proceedings before Swiss courts as well as arbitral tribunals located in Switzerland. Part one concentrates on the possibilities and limitations of legal assistance pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. In part two the utilization of evidence collected in discovery procedure in Switzerland, in the event of a party seeking legal assistance individually, is evaluated. Thereby, special consideration is given to the Hague Evidence Convention and the Swiss ordre public. The paper concludes with a short summary of the author's findings and rationalizations why evidence collected in discovery proceedings should be admitted."
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

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

Fulbright & Jaworski - 2009 International Arbitration Report - 0 views

www.fulbright.com/iar32

arbitration 28-USC-1782 e-discovery reports Fulbright 2009

shared by Lars Bauer on 16 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Applications Under Section 1782 to Obtain Discovery in International Arbitration
Lars Bauer

Biller & Suskin: May Courts Assist Private International Arbitration? The jud... - 0 views

www.law.com/...PubArticleCC.jsp

28-USC-1782 arbitration discovery law

shared by Lars Bauer on 23 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 23 Jan 10
     
    by Sofia E. Biller and Howard S. Suskin
Lars Bauer

Case of the Day: In re Republic of Ecuador | Letters Blogatory - 0 views

lettersblogatory.com/...mackay

USA 28-USC-1782 discovery cases

shared by Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11
     
    The case of the day, In re Republic of Ecuador (E.D. Cal. 2011), is yet another application for judicial assistance arising out of the Lago Agrio litigation (prior coverage here).
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."
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20▼ items per page