Skip to main content

Home/ 28 USC § 1782/ Group items tagged kazakhstan

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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

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

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]
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page