Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ 28 USC § 1782
Lars Bauer

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

  •  
    by Charles Owen Verrill Jr
Lars Bauer

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

  •  
    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

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

  •  
    by Stuart M. Riback (Siller Wilk LLP), prepared for the American Bar Association Business Law Section Spring Meeting 2007
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

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

  •  
    by C. Mark Baker and Efren Olivares (Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.)
Lars Bauer

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

  •  
    Ch. 14 Discovery in United States in Aid of Proceedings Outside U.S. Including 28 U.S.C. §1782
Lars Bauer

Baker & McKenzie - 0 views

  • 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]
Lars Bauer

ICDR Conference Covers International ADR Issues - 0 views

  • 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.
Lars Bauer

FindLaw > White Collar Crime - 0 views

  • Title: Weber v. Finker
  •  
    Summary zu Weber v. Finker
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

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

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

  • 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).
  •  
    Marks & Sokolov Article | United States Law Office Philadelphia Pennsylvania | Russian Law Office Moscow | Ukraine Law Office Kyiv
Lars Bauer

Third Circuit Weighs In Chevron Ecuador Matter, Permitting § 1782 Discovery B... - 0 views

  • 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).
  •  
    In Re Chevron Corp., No. 10-2815 (3d Cir. Feb. 2011)
Lars Bauer

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

  •  
    "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."
Lars Bauer

Applied Discovery | Law: Case Summary Alert - 0 views

  • 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."
  •  
    In re Application of Michael Wilson and Partners, Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90954 (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2011)
Lars Bauer

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

  • 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.
  •  
    Chevron Corp. v. Salazar (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Lars Bauer

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

  • 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
  •  
    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.
Lars Bauer

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

  •  
    In re Chevron Corp., 10 CV-2989, 2990-AW (D. Md. Nov. 24, 2010)
‹ Previous 21 - 40 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page