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
7InreApplicationofChevronIntelIdCrudeChevronetal.v.Berlingeretal.shallbeusedId.foruseinCrudeInreApplicationofChevronCorporationId.IntelIntelId.ElPasoIntelInreApplicationofChevronCorp.IdNejapaPowerexparteInreApplicationoftheRepublicofEcuadorIdwww.fulbright.comApril2011thearbitrationhereatissueisnotpendinginanarbitraltribunalestablishedbyprivateparties.ItispendinginatribunalestablishedbyaninternationaltreatytheBITbetweentheUnitedStatesandEcuadorandpursuanttotheUNCITRALrules.709F.Supp.2dat291.Thecourtthenwentontociteandsubsequentdecisionsgranting1782discoveryforuseinarbitrationswithoutmentioningcasesinwhichcourtshaverefusedtodoso..Onappealtheproducerofchallengedtherequestsonthegroundsthat1782doesnotapplytointernationalarbitration.TheSecondCircuitconsideredthatitdidnotneedtoreachthatargumentbecausetheEcuadoranlitigationprovidedanadequatebasisforthedistrictcourtsproductionorder.2011U.S.App.LEXIS629352dCir.Jan.132011.AccordinglytheSecondCircuitafrmedthegrantoftherequestorderingthatthematerialproduced...bythepetitionerssolelyforlitigationarbitrationorsubmissiontoofcialbodieseitherlocalorinternational.emphasisadded.Thatthecourtexplicitlystatedthatitwouldnotdecidewhether1782appliestointernationalarbitrationyetlaterincludedarbitrationamongtheusestowhichthepetitionerscouldputtheevidenceobtainedarguablygivesrisetoinconsistentreadingsofthedecision.Inadditionitmightbearguedthatthelanguageof1782requiresthattheproductionorderbespecicabouttheforumwherethediscoveryobtainedistobeusedasthestatuteprovidesthatthecourtmayorderdiscoveryaproceedinginaforeignorinternationaltribunal.28U.S.C.1782emphasisadded.BethatasitmayChevronobtainedtheouttakesandapparentlycansubmitthemasevidenceintheBITarbitration.AfterobtainingtheouttakesChevronfiledanother1782applicationintheEasternDistrictofPennsylvaniaseekingthedepositionofoneoftheEcuadoranplaintiffsfinanciers.2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS134970E.D.Pa.Dec.202010.ThecourtfirstnotedthatthereisnodoubtthattheEcuadoranlitigationconstitutesproceedingsforpurposesof1782.10-11.WithrespecttotheBITarbitrationthecourtconsideredthattheCourtdeterminedthatasusedin1782thewordtribunalincludesinternationalarbitrationtribunals...andCourtsthathaveaddressedthequestionafterhaveconsistentlyfoundthatinternationalarbitrationsareincluded.11.Notablyhoweverthecourtdidnotmentionthe2009decisioninwhichtheFifthCircuitruledthat1782doesnotapplytointernationalarbitrationtribunals.Likemostothercourtsfacingthequestionthecourtthenappliedthefourdiscretionaryfactorstothefactsofthecaseandgrantedtherequest.AtaroundthesametimeChevronalsosoughttoobtaindocumentsfromanenvironmentalconsultingfirmengagedbytheEcuadoranplaintiffs.2011U.S.App.LEXIS21123dCir.Feb.32011.InaffirmingthedistrictcourtsordergrantingtherequesttheThirdCircuitstatedsummarilythatuseoftheevidenceuncoveredinasection1782applicationintheBITarbitration...unquestionablywouldbeforauseinaproceedinginaforeignorinternationaltribunal..19.ThisstatementfromtheThirdCircuitcomesafteritavoidedthequestioninandhereitdidnotdelveintoananalysisofthescopeof1782.Inyetanother1782applicationintheChevron-EcuadorclashtheRepublicofEcuadorappliedtotheNorthernDistrictofCaliforniafordiscoveryandthedepositionofMr.BorjawhoallegedlyhadinformationrelevantforthecaseforuseintheBITarbitration.2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS102158N.D.Cal.Sept.152010.Ingrantingtheapplicationthecourtstatedthatthereiscaselawauthorityholdingthatanarbitrationpendinginatribunalestablishedbyaninternationaltreatyconstitutesaforeigntribunalforpurposesof1782andcitedtheSouthernDistrictofNewYorksdecision..8-9.OnasubsequentMotiontoQuashfiledbyMr.Borjathecourtcurtailedthediscoveryorderedbutdidnotrevisittheissueoftheapplicability