Banca Pueyo SA v. Lone Star Fund IX (US), L, 978 F.3d 968

Background

Petitioners (noteholders and their agents) sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from three Texas-based entities (Lone Star Fund IX and related advisers) for use in civil and criminal proceedings in Portugal concerning the 2014–15 retransfer of notes from Novo Banco to Banco Espírito Santo.
The district court granted the § 1782 application ex parte and authorized subpoenas; it concluded the statutory requirements and Intel discretionary factors favored discovery and invited respondents to move to quash.
The magistrate judge denied respondents’ first motion to quash; the district court affirmed that denial, and respondents appealed those rulings to the Fifth Circuit while litigation continued in district court.
Respondents then filed a second motion to quash; the magistrate issued a 52‑page order granting in part and denying in part, narrowing time windows for most requests, protecting a trade‑secret memo, and relieving respondents of producing documents held by foreign affiliates.
Petitioners filed objections and a motion for reconsideration to the magistrate’s order; those motions remain pending, so the district court has not yet issued a conclusive determination of the final scope of discovery.
The Fifth Circuit granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss the interlocutory appeal and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court has not definitively resolved the scope of discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the immediate appeal from the district court’s initial §1782 grant and denial of the first motion to quash is appealable	Petitioners: appeal is premature because the district court has not finally determined discovery scope; appeal should await a conclusive order	Respondents: the initial orders effectively resolved the controversy and are appealable now	Held: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; orders were not conclusive as to discovery scope
Whether the Fifth Circuit may apply the collateral‑order doctrine to §1782 proceedings	Petitioners: collateral‑order review is inappropriate at this stage; appeal should await final scope determination	Respondents: Fifth Circuit has applied the collateral‑order doctrine to §1782 appeals and thus can hear this appeal	Held: Court follows its precedent applying collateral‑order doctrine but finds the requirements unmet here
Whether the orders before the court were "conclusive" and thus appealable under the collateral‑order test	Petitioners: the magistrate’s later order and ongoing proceedings show the initial rulings were preliminary	Respondents: initial rulings were final as they authorized discovery and denied first quash motion	Held: Not conclusive; subsequent magistrate order and pending motions show the district court had more to decide
Whether §1782 subpoenas may reach documents held by foreign affiliates (extraterritoriality)	Petitioners: §1782 can reach affiliated foreign‑located documents in appropriate circumstances	Respondents: subpoenas cannot compel production of documents located abroad and held by non‑U.S. affiliates	Held: Court declined to decide now; magistrate’s later narrowing (refusing production of affiliates’ documents) illustrates the issue may become moot and thus not suitable for interlocutory review

Key Cases Cited

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (establishes §1782 statutory requirements and discretionary Intel factors)
Texas Keystone, Inc. v. Prime Natural Res., 694 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012) (Fifth Circuit applies collateral‑order framework to §1782 appeals)
Ecuadorian Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corp., 619 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2010) (discusses discretionary factors in foreign‑proof‑gathering assistance)
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1945) (defines finality for appellate jurisdiction)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1981) (finality rule for appeals)
Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1994) (sets collateral‑order test elements)
In re Republic of Ecuador, 735 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2013) (§1782 appeal permitted after district court conclusively decides scope of discovery)
In re Furstenberg Fin. SAS v. Litai Assets LLC, 877 F.3d 1031 (11th Cir. 2017) (discusses appealability of §1782 orders)
Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 881 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2018) (appealability requires a conclusive district‑court decision)
In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019) (addresses extraterritorial reach of §1782 subpoenas)
Sergeeva v. Tripleton Int’l Ltd., 834 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2016) (discusses limits on extraterritorial discovery)
Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (U.S. 2009) (cautions against interlocutory appeals that impede efficient administration)
Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., 527 U.S. 198 (U.S. 1999) (final judgment rule prevents piecemeal appeals)
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (U.S. 2017) (appellate jurisdiction is a practical, non‑speculative inquiry)