Skip to main content

Home/ 28 USC § 1782/ Group items tagged evidence

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Lars Bauer

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

  • The Use of Evidence Obtained in US-American Discovery in International Civil Procedure Law and Arbitration in Switzerland [Müller-Chen] (238 KB)
  •  
    "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

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

  •  
    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

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

  • 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.
  •  
    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

DLA Piper | Litigants in foreign proceedings may obtain documents, other evidence locat... - 0 views

  • Applications of Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH, for Orders Compelling Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding v. Biomet, Inc., (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2011)
  •  
    A party to a lawsuit in Germany may obtain documents from its adversary in the United States for use in the German litigation, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Court's recent decision in Applications of Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH, for Orders Compelling Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding v. Biomet, Inc., (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2011), highlights the usefulness of the federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1782 as a means of obtaining documents, testimony and other evidence from opposing parties or third parties located in the United States to support foreign litigation (and possibly arbitration).
Lars Bauer

The Mandatory / Non-mandatory Character of the Evidence Convention [PDF] - 0 views

  •  
    drawn up by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, December 2008
Lars Bauer

KYC News Inc. - Community Message Board: Detail - Re: Critics Call Delaware a Tax Haven... - 0 views

  •  
    "Below is a a Memorandum of Law that was used in an application for the appointment of a commissioner to collect evidence - pursuant to a request for judicial assistance from the United Kingdom - that was made at the U. S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 1, 2008."
Lars Bauer

Schmertz/Meier, Judicial Assistance (Evidence), 2004 Int'l L. Update, Vol. 10, No. 6 (J... - 0 views

  •  
    "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."
Lars Bauer

EXTRADITION AND FOREIGN EVIDENCE: Ask the Expert: Professor Richard Wilson on Internati... - 0 views

  •  
    July 24, 2008
Lars Bauer

Skillful Ways of Gathering and Using Discovery Abroad | International Asset Recovery La... - 0 views

  • For instance, in the Netherlands, Dutch courts have held that evidence obtained under Section 1782 may be used in proceedings there.  Under Dutch civil procedure, a party may request production of documents. Courts have decided that only documents relevant to the outcome of the proceedings will be produced and to grant such request, the  applicant's claim must be well-reasoned and at least not be obviously without merit. If it is not certain that the documents exist, Dutch courts will not order their production. There is also a conflict among court decisions as to whether only documents where the applicant is a party to the legal relationship can be produced. Hence, Dutch discovery can be very limiting.
  • Dutch courts have ruled that evidence obtained pursuant to Section 1782 is admissible in the Dutch proceeding since it was not unlawfully obtained.
Lars Bauer

Alford: Chevron's Discovery of Crude Outtakes | Roger Alford, Opinio Juris, May 7, 2010 - 0 views

  •  
    "Yesterday a federal court in New York granted Chevron's request for discovery of outtakes from the 2009 documentary Crude about the multi-billion dollar litigation in Ecuador. Chevron's request was pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, which authorizes a judge in the United States to order discovery of evidence to be used in proceedings before a foreign tribunal." -- Also published on Kluwer Arbitration Blog: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2010/05/07/chevrons-discovery-of-crude-outtakes/
Lars Bauer

Karadelis: Chevron gets access to film footage under section 1782 | Global Arbitration ... - 0 views

  •  
    "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."
Lars Bauer

Obtaining US Discovery Is Not Imperiled When Pursuing Foreign Recovery | International ... - 0 views

  • In many foreign jurisdictions, discovery can be onerous from non-parties. For instance, in Canada, discovery will only be allowed if a) the moving party has been unable to obtain the information from other persons, b) it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without the opportunity to obtain the discovery and c) the discovery will not entail unreasonable expenses or unfairness to the non-party.
  • Canadian courts have viewed the use of Section 1782 favorably in proceedings pending there.
  • In CC Chemicals Ltd. v. Sternson Ltd., (1980) 116 D.L.R. (3d) 239 (S.C.), the court permitted Section 1782 to fill a procedural gap since it did not otherwise interfere with the Canadian action.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • In Penty v. Law Society of British Columbia, (1999) 69 B.C.L.R. (3d) 159 (S.C.), the court concluded that a Canadian court will generally be reluctant to prevent a party from gathering evidence extraterritorially. Efforts to gather evidence in the US did not present a comity concern nor an overriding issue of unfairness.
Lars Bauer

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

  • 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
  •  
    by Abram I. Moore - short notes on Hallmark Capital, Babcock Borsig and the two decisions in Comision Ejecutiva (Delaware and Texas)
Lars Bauer

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

  • 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.
  •  
    Note by Gary Born (WilmerHale) on Application of Winning (HK) Shipping Co. Ltd., 2010 WL 1796579 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010)
Lars Bauer

Gathering Evidence in the United States for Use in Foreign Proceedings: 28 U.... - 0 views

  •  
    W. Cameron Beard (Blank Rome LLP), Mainbrace, October 2008 (no. 3) -- Klienteninfo ohne Tiefgang und Nachweise
Lars Bauer

Current Legal News - Seattle Washington Criminal Defense Lawyer - Steve Karimi - 0 views

  • [01/15] Weber v. FinkerIn a case involving the authority of the federal district courts to assist litigants before foreign tribunals with the production of evidence in the U.S., partial grant and denial of petitioner's motion to compel discovery filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1742(a) is affirmed where: 1) the circuit court rejects a claim that petitioner should have brought her request for judicial assistance under The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, as opposed to section 1782; 2) the district court was well within its discretion to order discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 3) shareholders waived a claim that the district court erred in finding the motion to compel could be treated as a pretrial matter that could be referred to a Magistrate Judge.
Lars Bauer

Blank Rome LLP: Further Update on 28 U.S.C. § 1782: Collecting Evidence in th... - 0 views

  •  
    W. Cameron Beard, February 2002
Lars Bauer

Obtaining Evidence from U.S. Courts for Use in Cross-Border Disputes (Alcott, Autumn 20... - 0 views

  •  
    by Mark H. Alcott, in: NYSBA International Law Practicum, Vol. 21, No. 2, Autumn 2008, pp. 118-123
1 - 20 of 20
Showing 20 items per page