Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ 28 USC § 1782
Rss Feed
Sort By: Most Recent | Popular Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
1More

Owen Verrill Jr: Discovery from Non-Parties (Third-Party Discovery) in International Ar... - 0 views

www.wileyrein.com/...RLES%20OWEN%20VERRILL%20Jr.pdf discovery arbitration non-parties thirds 28-USC-1782 articles
shared by Lars Bauer on 31 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 31 Jan 10
     
    by Charles Owen Verrill Jr
1More

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).
1More

Riback: American Discovery For Foreign Litigation Under 28 USC § 1782 | Jan 2... - 0 views

www.sillerwilk.com/...article-1782.pdf USA 28-USC-1782 law discovery arbitration articles
shared by Lars Bauer on 19 Feb 10 - No Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 19 Feb 10
     
    by Stuart M. Riback (Siller Wilk LLP), prepared for the American Bar Association Business Law Section Spring Meeting 2007
9More

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

kluwerarbitrationblog.com/...rnational-arbitral-proceedings law arbitration discovery 28-USC-1782 Winning-Case case-notes
shared by Lars Bauer on 12 Jun 10 - Cached
  • 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.
  • Lars Bauer on 12 Jun 10
     
    Note by Gary Born (WilmerHale) on Application of Winning (HK) Shipping Co. Ltd., 2010 WL 1796579 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010)
1More

Baker/Olivares: "Do 'Foreign Tribunals' Include Arbitration Panels?" | The National Law... - 0 views

www.fulbright.com/...NLJ-BakerOlivaresMay2010.pdf 28-USC-1782 law arbitration discovery
shared by Lars Bauer on 24 Jun 10 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 24 Jun 10
     
    by C. Mark Baker and Efren Olivares (Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.)
1More

Proskauer on International Litigation and Arbitration > Ch. 14 - 0 views

www.proskauerguide.com/...I 28-USC-1782 USA
shared by Lars Bauer on 22 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 22 Mar 11
     
    Ch. 14 Discovery in United States in Aid of Proceedings Outside U.S. Including 28 U.S.C. §1782
2More

Baker & McKenzie - 0 views

bakerxchange.com/...page=21 28-USC-1782 BakerMcKenzie Babcock-Borsig Comision-Ejecutiva
shared by Lars Bauer on 04 Feb 09 - Cached
  • Section 1782.  District court holds that Section 1782 discovery may be used in aid of private international arbitration.   In re: Application of Babcock Borsig AG for Assistance Before a Foreign Tribunal, Case No. 08-mc-10128-DPW (D. Mass. 2008) [click for opinion]
  • Section 1782.  District court holds that Section 1782 discovery may not be used in aid of private international arbitration.    La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelecctrica del Rio Lempa v. El Paso Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94395 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008) [click for opinion]
1More

ICDR Conference Covers International ADR Issues - 0 views

www.adr.org/sp.asp 28-USC-1782 conferences
shared by Lars Bauer on 05 Feb 09 - Cached
  • The panel also discussed the implications of 28 USC 1782 for international arbitration. Robert Smit, of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, said "discovery should be available under 1782 in aid of foreign and international arbitration provided the discovery application is made or approved by the arbitral tribunal." Smit, chairman of the International Commercial Dispute Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, said the committee will soon issue a report on best practices vis-à-vis Section 1782 and international arbitration.
2More

FindLaw > White Collar Crime - 0 views

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...viewcase.pl 28-USC-1782 Weber_Finker
shared by Lars Bauer on 04 Feb 09 - Cached
  • Title: Weber v. Finker
  • Lars Bauer on 04 Feb 09
     
    Summary zu Weber v. Finker
2More

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

www.dlapiper.com/s-other-evidence-located-in-us 28-USC-1782 USA Germany case-notes
shared by Lars Bauer on 22 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • Applications of Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH, for Orders Compelling Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding v. Biomet, Inc., (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2011)
  • Lars Bauer on 22 Mar 11
     
    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).
1More

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.
6More

Legal Overview - How Foreign Litigants May Obtain American Discovery For Use In Their H... - 0 views

marks-sokolov.com/article_sullivan_01.htm 28-USC-1782 articles arbitration discovery
shared by Lars Bauer on 15 Mar 09 - Cached
  • Williams Industrial Services, LLC v. Steel Equipment Corp., CA NO: 2:08-MC-179-AJS (W.D. Pa. June 24, 2008).
  • III. The Application of §1782 to Private International Arbitration
  • Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel, various courts have granted §1782 discovery in aid of private arbitral matters. In In re Hallmark Capital Corp., the court granted discovery for use in a private Israeli arbitration proceeding. By its Order dated September 13, 2007 denying the discovery target’s motion for reconsideration, the court bypassed National Broadcasting by relying upon Intel’s rejection of restrictive definitional exclusions.39 In In re Application Roz Trading, the court granted an application requesting the production of documents for use before an arbitral panel of the International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber in Vienna.40 In Williams Industrial Services, LLC v. Steel Equipment Corp., in the absence of opposition the court granted document discovery for use in a private arbitration matter before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France.41
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • 40In re Application Roz Trading, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (N.D.Ga. 2006); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2112 (N.D.Ga. 2007) (Denying request for stay pending appeal.) On June 4, 2008 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the appellant Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss its appeal with prejudice.
  • 41Williams Industrial Services, LLC v. Steel Equipment Corp., CA NO: 2:08-MC-179-AJS (W.D. Pa. June 24, 2008).
  • Lars Bauer on 15 Mar 09
     
    Marks & Sokolov Article | United States Law Office Philadelphia Pennsylvania | Russian Law Office Moscow | Ukraine Law Office Kyiv
2More

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)
1More

District Court Rejects Use Of Section 1782 In Aid Of ICC Arbitration - 0 views

www.lexisnexis.com/...in-aid-of-icc-arbitration.aspx 28-USC-1782 discovery arbitration cases
shared by Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11
     
    "In In Re Rhodianyl S.A.S. and Rhodia Operations S.A.S., No. 11-1026-JTM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72918 (D. Kan. March 25, 2011), the District of Kansas held that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 ("Section 1782") could not be used to seek discovery from a party to a foreign international arbitration. In its key holding, the court found that a purely private international arbitral tribunal did not constitute a "tribunal" within the meaning of Section 1782."
4More

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)
3More

Case of the Day: Chevron Corp. v. Salazar | Letters Blogatory - 0 views

lettersblogatory.com/...e-day-chevron-corp-v-salazar-2 28-USC-1782 discovery legal-privilege cases
shared by Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The case involves the adequacy of Chevron’s privilege log. The magistrate judge reviewed the supposedly privileged documents at issue in camera.
  • The case illustrates the (unfortunately common) misuse of claims of privilege in US civil litigation.
  • Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11
     
    Chevron Corp. v. Salazar (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
2More

"Navigating Between German and US Discovery Provisions" - 0 views

patent-in-suit.com/?p=141 28-USC-1782 discovery USA Germany parallel-proceedings articles
shared by Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • I have a new article, written with my Silicon Valley colleague Tamara Fraizer, live now on IP360 (IP360 subscription required): http://www.law360.com/articles/270953/navigating-between-german-and-us-discovery-provisions
  • Lars Bauer on 11 Oct 11
     
    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.
1More

Section 1782 Relief Permitted For Discovery in International Arbitration and Litigation... - 0 views

blog.internationalpractice.org/?p=783 28-USC-1782 arbitration discovery case-notes USA
shared by Lars Bauer on 20 Dec 10 - No Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 20 Dec 10
     
    In re Chevron Corp., 10 CV-2989, 2990-AW (D. Md. Nov. 24, 2010)
‹ Previous 21 - 40 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page