Bouvier v. Adelson
696 F. App'x 537
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioners Accent Delight International Ltd. and Xitrans Finance Ltd. sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to assist foreign litigation in Monaco; respondent Sotheby’s was the discovery target; Yves Bouvier and MEI Invest intervened to oppose (Bouvier).
- The Southern District of New York (Furman, J.) granted Petitioners’ § 1782 application; the district court applied the Intel discretionary factors and ordered discovery.
- Bouvier appealed, arguing (1) the district court failed adequately to consider the Intel factors (especially factor three), (2) the court abused its discretion by denying Bouvier leave to submit supplemental briefing, and (3) § 1782 does not authorize discovery of documents located outside the United States.
- The Second Circuit reviews de novo whether the statutory requirements of § 1782 are met and reviews the grant of discovery for abuse of discretion; it distilled Intel into a four-factor test (participant status, nature/receptivity of foreign tribunal, circumvention of foreign policies, undue burden).
- The panel affirmed the district court’s order in all challenged respects in this summary order, holding that the district court considered the Intel factors sufficiently and acted within its discretion in denying supplemental briefing; the court declined to decide whether § 1782 reaches documents located abroad because the record lacked any showing that responsive documents were stored outside the U.S.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bouvier) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly considered Intel factors, esp. factor 3 (circumvention) | Court failed to consider whether request circumvented Monaco evidence-gathering limits | District court considered factors; Monaco magistrate’s letter showed receptivity and no circumvention | Affirmed: court adequately considered Intel factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether denial of request for supplemental briefing was an abuse of discretion | Court should have allowed further briefing after new evidence (magistrate letter) | Parties had briefed Intel factors; multiple submissions and oral argument were received before decision | Affirmed: denial was within court’s discretion |
| Whether § 1782 authorizes discovery of documents located outside the U.S. | § 1782 should not reach foreign-located documents (Bouvier contested grant as to extraterritorial documents) | Petitioners did not assert documents were abroad; discovery necessary for foreign litigation | Not decided: court declined to resolve because record contained no evidence that responsive documents were located abroad |
Key Cases Cited
- Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for § 1782 determinations)
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (Supreme Court articulates discretionary factors for § 1782 discovery)
- Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2015) (distills Intel into four-factor test used in this circuit)
- In re Application of Sarrio, S.A., 119 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.) (declined to decide extraterritorial reach of § 1782)