In Re: Application of Banco BTG Pactual S.A. and Travessia Securitizadora de Creditos Financeiros VIII S.A. for an Order to take Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, 1:24-mc-00304

In 2014, the Foreign Defendants confessed to debts owed to Itaú and Banco BVA by executing a public debt confession; they soon defaulted.
The debts were later transferred to Petitioners Travessia and Banco BTG, who became plaintiffs in ongoing debt-related proceedings in Brazil (the "Foreign Proceedings").
Petitioners sought U.S. discovery from Admel, a New York corporation purportedly holding undisclosed assets for the Foreign Defendants, under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
The district court granted the Petition ex parte; Admel failed to comply with the subpoena or court orders for several months.
Admel moved to vacate the order and quash the subpoena, arguing the Brazilian proceedings were not "adjudicative," and the discovery sought was overbroad and burdensome.
The district court evaluated the statutory elements of § 1782 and the Intel factors, ultimately denying Admel's motions and requiring compliance.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Admel's Argument	Held
Whether the foreign proceedings are "adjudicative in nature" for § 1782	The proceedings are not merely enforcement; issues remain for the court, including asset qualification under Brazilian law.	The proceedings concern only enforcement of an existing debt, with no merits left to decide.	Proceedings are adjudicative; discovery can aid unresolved issues.
Whether requested discovery is overbroad or unduly burdensome	Requests are proportional given the proceedings' duration and relevant to tracing assets over time.	Requests cover more than a decade and go beyond current asset holdings, making them overbroad.	Requests are warranted and proportional; motion to quash denied.
Whether Petitioners are using discovery to circumvent foreign restrictions	Discovery is for use in pending proceedings; no bypass of Brazilian law or policy.	Implicitly questions motive and scope but provides no evidence of circumvention.	No evidence of circumvention; factor favors Petitioners.
Whether US courts should assist under § 1782 given Intel factors	All relevant factors support granting discovery.	Argues against overbroad discovery; otherwise, factors not heavily disputed.	All Intel factors (except burden) favor Petitioners; discovery allowed.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (sets out discretionary factors for § 1782 discovery)
Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2015) (clarifies § 1782 statutory elements and Intel factors)
Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 1998) (discusses adjudicative nature requirement under § 1782)