Helga M. Glock v. Glock, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14400
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Helga Glock filed a § 1782 application in 2013 to obtain evidence from Glock entities for use in Austrian divorce proceedings.
- Glock Entities entered a protective order limiting use of confidential materials to proceedings to which Helga was a party.
- Helga later filed a separate U.S. RICO action against Gaston and Glock Entities and sought leave to use § 1782 documents in that case.
- Magistrate judge granted leave to use the documents in the RICO Action; Glock Entities objected, arguing § 1782 forbids U.S. use.
- District court sustained objections, ruling the magistrate’s order was contrary to law and restricting use under the Protective Order.
- Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding § 1782 does not bar use in subsequent U.S. civil litigation and the Protective Order does not preclude such use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1782 preclude later use in U.S. litigation of documents obtained under § 1782? | Helga Glock argues § 1782 does not prohibit later U.S. use. | Glock Entities contend § 1782 precludes any U.S. use of the documents. | No; § 1782 does not preclude later U.S. use. |
| Whether the Protective Order bars use of § 1782 materials in U.S. litigation. | Protective Order allows use with leave for proceedings worldwide when authorized. | Protective Order, entered in § 1782 context, should limit use to foreign proceedings only. | Protective Order does not categorically preclude use in U.S. litigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Samkle Auto. Inc., 425 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005) (statutory language governs § 1782 scope; guiding interpretation)
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (four-factor discretionary test for § 1782 relief)
- In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2007) (discusses Intel factors and discovery abuse concerns)
- United Kingdom v. United States, 238 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for abuse of discretion)
- In re Letter Rogatory from the Justice Court., Dist. of Montreal, Canada, 523 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1975) (historical context of cross-border evidence requests)
- Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 747 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizes broad discretion in § 1782 orders)
- FTC v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54 (11th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion framework for protective orders)
- In re Crown Prosecution Service of United Kingdom, 870 F.2d 686 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (protective-order context in § 1782 matters)