Application of Consorcio Equatoriano De Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. Jet Air Service Equador S.A.
747 F.3d 1262
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- This is an §1782 discovery case arising from a CONECEL–JASE shipping-invoice dispute.
- CONECEL sought US discovery from JAS USA for use in Ecuadorian civil and potential criminal actions against two former CONECEL employees.
- District Court granted ex parte application and authorized service of a subpoena; JASE intervened and sought to vacate, which the district court denied.
- CONECEL plans civil action in Quito and potential private criminal action if successful; discovery was sought before suit to gather evidentiary support.
- Appellate court affirmed, noting proceedings need only be within reasonable contemplation and that discovery was narrowly tailored and nonburdensome.
- This opinion replaces a prior one and focuses on statutory authorization, discretion, and reconsideration rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a foreign proceeding exists under §1782(a). | CONECEL contends civil and criminal actions against ex-employees are within reasonable contemplation. | JASE argues no foreign proceeding is contemplated. | Yes; contemplated civil and possible criminal actions satisfy §1782(a). |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting discovery despite confidentiality concerns. | CONECEL argues discovery relates to CONECEL’s contract pricing and is narrowly tailored. | JASE argues discovery would reveal confidential pricing information and be burdensome. | No abuse; discovery was narrowly tailored and related to the contract at issue, not general pricing. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying JASE’s motion for reconsideration. | JASE contends newly presented Ecuadorian action against Egas undermines likelihood of contemplated proceedings. | CONECEL argues new evidence does not demonstrate change in outcome. | Affirmed; new evidence was not material and likely would not change the result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. AMD, 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (requires only that a proceeding be within reasonable contemplation; not pending)
- In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (four Intel factors guide discretion after prima facie showing)
- United Kingdom v. United States, 238 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for §1782 discovery rulings)
- Crown Prosecution Serv. of the U.K. v. Nat’l Berespons., 870 F.2d 686 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (reasonableness of contemplated proceedings; close scrutiny of likelihood)
- Weber v. Finker, 554 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 2009) (reiterates Rule 26 discovery framework applies to §1782)