789 F. Supp. 2d 1294
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- This matter concerns a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application by Dr. Braga to obtain discovery in the Southern District of Florida related to a Brazilian bankruptcy of Petroforte and its affiliates.
- Rural Bahamas moved to intervene and sought a stay of discovery pending related foreign proceedings in Brazil and the Cayman Islands.
- The court granted limited intervention and reviewed a broad stay request, narrowing scope and duration.
- The court declined a broad, indefinite stay and instead ordered a limited stay expiring on June 30, 2011 absent further foreign-tribunal rulings.
- The court emphasized the need to avoid disclosure of privileged or confidential information and to balance American interests with Brazilian and Cayman Islands objectives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay of discovery pending foreign proceedings is appropriate | Braga argues for staying broad discovery to avoid conflicts | Intervenors argue for stay due to foreign proceedings and confidentiality | Granted in part; limited, temporary stay justified |
| Whether discovery related to Securinvest and Rabello should be stayed | Braga seeks broad discovery including Securinvest | Intervenors contend Securinvest is subject to foreign limits | Stay limited to Securinvest-related discovery; others may proceed |
| Whether the court should abstain or defer to foreign tribunals on foreign-law questions | Braga urges court to proceed, not resolve foreign law | Intervenors urge deferral to Brazilian/Cayman proceedings | Limited stay adopted to defer unsettled foreign-law questions |
| Whether a stay should expire pending foreign rulings or continue indefinitely | Stay should cover necessary period | Indefinite stay risks delay and uncertainty | Stay set to expire June 30, 2011 unless foreign rulings lift/modify |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (discovery under § 1782 must be relevant to foreign proceeding)
- Kang v. Noro-Moseley Partners, 246 Fed.Appx. 662 (11th Cir. 2007) (post-Intel: applicant limited to discovery relevant to foreign proceeding)
- Belize Telecom, Ltd. v. Government of Belize, 528 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008) (abstention and the staying of related foreign litigation considerations)
- Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc'ns, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) (international abstention factors: comity, fairness, efficiency)
- Turner Entm't Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512 (11th Cir. 1994) (international abstention framework and stay considerations)