No. 18-706

Esther Kiobel, By and Through Her Attorney-In-Fact, Channa Samkalden v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2018-11-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: confidentiality-order discovery-standards discretion discretion-of-district-court district-court-discretion foreign-court-receptivity foreign-legal-assistance foreign-legal-assistance-statute-28-usc-1782 foreign-non-discoverability intel-case intel-v-advanced-micro-devices non-discoverability second-circuit-court-of-appeals section-1782
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw TradeSecret
Latest Conference: 2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Under Intel, may a district court in its discretion allow Section 1782 discovery where the foreign court is receptive to U.S. discovery, but the documents at issue 'would not be discoverable abroad?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Foreign Legal Assistance Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1782, allows federal district courts, in their discretion, to order production of documents for use in foreign legal proceedings. This Court held in Intel v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S. 241 (2004), that where a “foreign tribunal would readily accept relevant information discovered in the United States” pursuant to Section 1782, a rule requiring that the documents would be discoverable if located in the foreign country “would be senseless.” Id. at 262. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held, as a matter of law, that the district court abused its discretion in granting discovery under Section 1782 because the documents “would not be discoverable abroad,” despite the fact that the foreign court would be receptive to this discovery. The question presented is: Under Intel, may a district court in its discretion allow Section 1782 discovery where the foreign court is receptive to U.S. discovery, but the documents at issue “would not be discoverable abroad”?

Docket Entries

2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-12-11
Waiver of right of respondent Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP to respond filed.
2018-11-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 31, 2018)

Attorneys

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Neal Kumar KatyalHogan Lovells US LLP, Respondent
Neal Kumar KatyalHogan Lovells US LLP, Respondent
Esther Kiobel
Marco Benjamin SimonsEarthRights International, Petitioner
Marco Benjamin SimonsEarthRights International, Petitioner