Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
5InternationalArbitrationReportsee2009InternationalArbitrationReportIssue2Chevronv.EcuadorNationalBroadcastingCompanyv.BearStearnsCo.RepublicofKazakhstanv.BiedermannIntelv.AdvancedMicroDevicesInteldictaIntelIntelIntelIntelInreOxusGoldwww.fulbright.comApril2011IntelSECTION1782UPDATECHEVRONV.ECUADORANDTHEUNCERTAINFUTUREOFU.S.DISCOVERYINAIDOFINTERNATIONALARBITRATIONTheIssueAfterAsarbitrationhasbecomeanincreasinglycommonformofinternationaldisputeresolutioncourtshaveseenmoreandmorepartiesseekcourt-ordereddiscoveryinaidofinternationalarbitration.IntheUnitedStatessuchrequestsarebasedon28U.S.C.1782afederalprovisionthatallowsacourttoorderapersontogivehistestimonyorstatementortoproduceadocumentorotherthingforuseinaproceedinginaforeignorinternationaltribunal...Whetheraforeignorinternationaltribunalincludesprivateinternationalarbitrationpanelshasbeenthesourceofagrowingbodyofcourtdecisions.Inpastissueswehavediscussedrelevantfederalcourtdecisionsaddressingtheintersectionof1782andinternationalarbitrationSection1782ApplicationstoObtainDiscoveryinInternationalArbitrationAreU.S.CourtsBeginningtoTakeaMoreConservativeStancep.8.Inthispiecewebrieyreviewsalientcase-lawdevelopmentswithafocusonrecentdevelopmentsinthelitigationandwhattheymayholdforthefutureofcourt-ordereddiscoveryinaidofinternationalarbitration.Before2004twoCourtsofAppealsruledthat1782didnotapplytointernationalarbitrationtribunals.165F.3d1842dCir.1999168F.3d8805thCir.1999.Theninthe2004decisionin542U.S.2412004theU.S.SupremeCourtheldthattheCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesqualiedasaforeignorinternationaltribunalwithinthemeaningof1782reasoningthatwhen1782wasenactedthelegislatureintendedtoincludequasi-judicialbodiesandtheEuropeanCommissionwassuchabody.didnotaddresswhether1782appliestointernationalarbitraltribunalsbutitincludedinareferencetoa1965academicarticlesuggestingthatarbitraltribunalsareincluded.alsosetforthfourfactorsthatcourtsshouldlookatwhenexercisingtheirdiscretiontogrant1782discoveryiwhetherthepartyfromwhomdiscoveryissoughtisapartyintheforeignproceedingiitheforeigntribunalsreceptivitytoU.S.federalcourtjudicialassistanceiiiwhetherthediscoveryactionconstitutesanattempttocircumventdiscoveryrestrictionsintheunderlyingforeignproceedingandivwhetherthe1782applicationisundulyintrusiveorburdensome.542U.S.at264-65.Thedecisionspawnedaflurryof1782applicationsinaidofinternationalarbitrationsanddistrictcourtshavenotalwaysdecidedthemconsistently.Forexamplein2006adistrictcourtgranteda1782applicationforuseinaninvestor-statearbitrationreasoningthatsincethearbitrationarosefromatreatythetribunalwasaquasi-judicialbodyunder.No.Misc.06-822006WL2927615D.N.J.Oct.112006.Othercourtsgranted