United States: Two New Rulings On US Discovery

Mitchell Hurley, John Murphy and Justin Williams of Akin Gump consider two recent rulings by US circuit courts that have swept aside assumptions about the availability of US discovery in aid of international arbitrations and in respect of documents held outside the US.

Two decisions by the US court in the past month are likely to have a significant effect on the practice of international arbitration worldwide. Until recently, the availability of US discovery against third parties in aid of foreign proceedings was thought not to extend to international arbitration or to documents held overseas by US persons. Both of those assumptions have now been swept aside, at least in certain circuit courts in the US. The ability now to seek such US third-party discovery represents a significant new tool to be deployed by arbitration counsel in suitable cases. The implications in some instances may be far-reaching.

On 19 September, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the use of section 1782 of the United States Code to obtain discovery in connection with a commercial arbitration outside the United States. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit diverged from the Fifth and Second Circuits, which have reached the opposite conclusion. The Sixth Circuit decision arose from a dispute between Abdul Latif Jameel Transportation Company (ALJ) and FedEx International. The parties entered into two contracts, one that specified that disputes would be resolved in Dubai under the rules of the DIFC-LCIA, and one that specified arbitration in Saudi Arabia under the rules of that country. Disputes arose relating to the agreements, and separate arbitrations were brought in each forum.

In connection with the arbitrations, ALJ filed an application for discovery under section 1782 in the US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking production of documents and deposition testimony from FedEx's US-based affiliate. Under section 1782, a federal district court may order discovery "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal" upon an application by "any interested person." After a hearing, the district court denied the application, holding that neither the DIFC-LCIA nor the Saudi Arabian arbitration panel constituted a "foreign or international tribunal" under the statute.

The Sixth Circuit, after "careful consideration of the statutory text, the meaning of that text based on common definitions and usage of the language at issue, as well as the statutory context and history" of section 1782, reversed the district court and held that the statute permits discovery in aid of private commercial arbitrations occurring outside the United States. The decision hinged on the meaning of the word "tribunal," which was not defined by the statute. The Sixth Circuit noted that some dictionary definitions of the word were broad enough to encompass private arbitrations, while others were narrower. The court then observed that the word "tribunal" had been commonly used by US courts (including the US Supreme Court) to describe private arbitration for many years before Congress added that word to section 1782 in 1964. The Sixth Circuit likewise determined that nothing in that statute evidenced an intent that "tribunal" should be interpreted to exclude private arbitration.

The Sixth Circuit also found support for a broad interpretation of "tribunal" in a Supreme Court decision from 2004, Intel Corp v Advanced Micro Devices. That case involved an application for discovery under section 1782 related to a case brought before the Directorate-General for Competition of the Commission of the European Communities. The Supreme Court held that this body was a "tribunal" under the statute. Among other things, the Supreme Court relied on the legislative history of section 1782, noting that the original statute applied only to a "judicial proceeding pending in any court in a foreign country," whereas the statute as amended in 1964 applied to a "proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal." According to the Supreme Court, "Congress understood that change to provide the possibility of US judicial assistance in connection with administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings abroad."

By contrast, the Second Circuit in National Broadcasting Co v Bear Stearns and the Fifth Circuit in Republic of Kazakhstan v Biedermann both held (prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Intel) that the meaning of the word "tribunal" was ambiguous and relied on the legislative history of the section to conclude that it did not encompass private arbitrations. The Second Circuit, for example, reasoned that although the House and Senate committee reports stated that "tribunal" was "not confined to proceedings before conventional courts," it was nevertheless "apparent in the context that the authors of these reports had in mind only governmental entities, such as administrative or investigative courts, acting as state instrumentalities or with the authority of the state." The Second Circuit also found it noteworthy that the legislative history made no mention of private arbitration. The court indicated it was "confident that a significant congressional expansion of American judicial assistance to international arbitral panels created exclusively by private parties would not have been lightly undertaken by Congress without at least a mention of this legislative intention." The Sixth Circuit's decision thus establishes a circuit split, which increases the chances that the Supreme Court will weigh in to resolve the issue.

The potential impact of the ALJ decision is magnified by a 7 October decision in the Second Circuit, In re Application of Antonio del Valle Ruiz. There, the Second Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that section 1782 authorises discovery located outside the US, as long as the party from whom discovery is sought has possession, custody, and control of the evidence and is subject to personal jurisdiction in the court where the application was made. In a brief discussion, the Second Circuit rejected the respondent's contention that the statute should be limited by the canon of statutory construction known as the "presumption against extraterritoriality," which states that "absent clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have only domestic application." The Second Circuit reasoned that this presumption applied only to statutes that regulate conduct; section 1782, in contrast, is simply a discovery mechanism that does not regulate conduct and does not subject a person to liability, and thus the presumption did not apply.

Both decisions are subject to important limitations. One of the most significant is geography: the ALJ decision is binding only on courts within the Sixth Circuit, which includes federal courts in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. As discussed above, the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut and Vermont) and Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) Courts of Appeal have expressly adopted the opposite rule. An application under section 1782(a) must be brought in the "district court of the district in which a person [from which discovery is sought] resides or is found," and thus the decision cannot be used to obtain discovery from persons residing or located solely within the Second or Fifth Circuits. Likewise, the Valle Ruiz decision is binding only in the Second Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Alabama and Georgia) is the only other Court of Appeal to address the issue. Both ALJ and Valle Ruiz, however, may be a persuasive authority that courts in other circuits may take into account.

Another important limitation is that section 1782 can only be used to obtain discovery from persons located within the United States – although, as Valle Ruiz makes clear, such discovery may also include evidence located outside the United States. Last, the statute is permissive, not mandatory: it does not require that a district court grant discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding, and district courts retain substantial discretion to determine the scope of discovery allowed, including whether to permit discovery of evidence outside the United States or whether to permit any discovery at all.

Notwithstanding these limitations, it is clear that these two recent decisions of the US circuit courts have the potential to expand the scope of the discovery of evidence in private international arbitration quite significantly. That said, the ambit of these decisions will naturally fall to be further tested as parties to international arbitrations seek to make use of section 1782.

Cases referenced

In re Application to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceeding, 2019 WL 4509287 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)

Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999)

National Broadcasting Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999)

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004)

In re Application of Antonio del Valle Ruiz, 2019 WL 4924395 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions