Skip to main content

Home/ 28 USC § 1782/ Group items tagged treaties

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Lars Bauer

Thailand Law Forum: Treaty Between the US and Thailand on Mutual Assistance in Criminal... - 0 views

www.thailawforum.com/...Treaty-Criminal.html

USA Thailand treaties legal-assistance criminal-law discovery 28-USC-1782

shared by Lars Bauer on 02 May 09 - Cached
  • The Treaty will not require further implementing legislation and will utilize the existing authority of the Federal courts, particularly 28 U.S.C. 1782.
Lars Bauer

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

obtainingforeignevidence.blogspot.com/...82-swiss-party-can-use-to.html

28-USC-1782 discovery decisions Weber_Finker

shared by Lars Bauer on 17 Jan 09 - Cached
Lars Bauer liked it
  • 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.
  • Lars Bauer on 17 Jan 09
     
    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

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

www.globalarbitrationreview.com/...28407

28-USC-1782 discovery arbitration USA Ecuador ICSID Chevron-Case

shared by Lars Bauer on 16 May 10 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 16 May 10
     
    "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

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

www.karimilawoffice.com/...TOCCurrentLegalNews.asp

28-USC-1782 Weber_Finker

shared by Lars Bauer on 04 Feb 09 - Cached
  • [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

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 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page