Department of Caldas v. Diageo PLC, 925 F.3d 1218

Four Colombian departments (Caldas, Cundinamarca, Valle del Cauca, Antioquia) filed a joint ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking depositions of five former employees of three liquor companies to aid an anticipated unfair-competition suit in Colombia.
The liquor companies (Diageo PLC, Seagrams Sales Co. Ltd., Pernod-Ricard S.A.) intervened, arguing the Departments previously represented that Colombian litigation was not possible and contesting the Departments’ entitlement to § 1782 discovery.
The magistrate judge initially recommended denying the amended application, finding two Departments did not qualify as interested persons and that discretionary Intel factors weighed against discovery.
The district court disagreed on the discretionary-receptivity factor, concluded Valle del Cauca and Cundinamarca met the statutory and discretionary requirements, and granted the § 1782 application as to those two Departments only.
The liquor companies appealed, raising (among other claims) two issues of first impression for the Eleventh Circuit: allocation of the burden on the Intel receptivity factor and whether a joint application must be granted or denied as a unit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper burden allocation for Intel "receptivity" factor in § 1782 proceedings	Liquor companies: burden should be on § 1782 applicant to prove foreign court receptivity	Departments: district court may consider evidence from both sides; no rigid burden-shifting	Court: adopt a middle approach—no rigid burden; courts may consider evidence from both sides and weigh factors as guideposts
Effect of joint § 1782 application when some applicants fail statutory requirements	Liquor companies: joint application should be granted or denied as a whole because successful Departments will share discovery with unsuccessful ones	Departments: partial grant is appropriate; denying all would be inefficient and ineffective	Court: affirmed partial grant to Valle del Cauca and Cundinamarca; unitary denial unnecessary and would produce identical outcome via refiling

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (announces discretionary factors for § 1782, including foreign tribunal receptivity)
In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (statutory § 1782 factors and standard of review)
Sergeeva v. Tripleton Int’l Ltd., 834 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2016) (standards for fact review cited)
In re Chevron Corp., 633 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding party opposing § 1782 bears burden to show offense to foreign jurisdiction)
Metallgesellschaft AG v. Hoddeson (In re Application for an Order Permitting Metallgesellschaft AG to Take Discovery), 121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997) (absent authoritative proof courts should not deny § 1782 on allegation foreign tribunal will reject evidence)
In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1998) (pre-Intel discussion supporting broad availability of § 1782 discovery)
Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 633 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011) (shifts burden to opposing party once applicant shows need for discovery)
In re Schlich, 893 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2018) (interpreting Intel to permit both sides to present arguments on discretionary factors)