IJK Palm LLC v. Anholt Services USA, Inc., 33f4th669

IJK Palm LLC invested in UOL indirectly through Palm Investment Partners (PIP); UOL later defaulted and entered liquidation in the Cayman Islands after IJK filed a §1782 discovery application in Connecticut.
Under Cayman law, the court‑appointed liquidators ordinarily must bring suits on behalf of a company in liquidation; shareholders may only sue with court approval if the liquidator declines.
IJK sought §1782 discovery from several Bermuda and Connecticut‑linked Anholt entities and two Connecticut residents, alleging the material would be used to pursue derivative claims against UOL’s CEO and directors.
After IJK filed, UOL entered liquidation; IJK proposed three uses for the §1782 materials: (1) give them to the liquidators to prompt a suit; (2) bring a double‑derivative suit via PIP if liquidators refuse; or (3) sue PIP’s directors directly.
The district court granted the §1782 application; Intervenors appealed. The Second Circuit reversed, finding IJK failed to show it was an “interested person” for the liquidators’ suit and that the requested material was not demonstrably “for use” in any of the contemplated foreign proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery is “for use” by UOL’s liquidators	IJK: materials would be provided to liquidators who could then sue	Intervenors: liquidators’ possible use is speculative; no foreign proceeding within reasonable contemplation	Held: Not “for use” — merely providing evidence to a third party who may or may not sue is insufficient
Whether IJK is an “interested person” re liquidators’ suit	IJK: shareholder interest and ability to supply materials make it interested	Intervenors: financial interest or ability to pass info is insufficient	Held: Not an “interested person” — lack of procedural rights or assurance liquidators will act
Whether discovery is “for use” for a double‑derivative suit via PIP	IJK: could sue through PIP if liquidators decline	Intervenors: significant Cayman procedural hurdles; uncertain leave to proceed	Held: Not within reasonable contemplation / Not “for use” — no objective basis to show IJK can inject evidence via this route
Whether discovery is “for use” for a direct suit against PIP directors	IJK: retained counsel and intends to sue PIP directors	Intervenors: allegations are vague; only counsel retained is insufficient	Held: Not “for use” — insufficient objective indicia that suit was in reasonable contemplation

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (§1782 requires the foreign proceeding be “within reasonable contemplation” and sets discretionary Intel factors)
Certain Funds, Accts. &/or Inv. Vehicles v. KPMG, L.L.P., 798 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (financial interest alone and mere ability to pass information do not establish §1782 ‘interested person’ status; need reliable indications proceedings will be instituted)
Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2012) (outlines statutory prerequisites for §1782 applications)
In re Accent Delight Int'l Ltd., 869 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2017) (applicant must have practical ability to inject requested information into the foreign proceeding)
Mangouras v. Squire Patton Boggs, 980 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2020) (applicant must provide sufficiently reliable indications that proceedings will be instituted within a reasonable time)
In re Application for an Ord. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in Foreign Proc., 773 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 2014) (standards of review and framework for §1782 inquiry)