In Re Cetteen GmbH, 2:24-mc-00228

CETTEEN GmbH applied ex parte under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for discovery from Varex Imaging Corporation (Varex U.S.), seeking documents and deposition testimony for use in anticipated foreign litigation in Germany against Varex Germany (Varex U.S.'s subsidiary).
CETTEEN claimed it needed this discovery to support alleged trade secret and intellectual property misappropriation claims in the German court arising from a joint venture dispute over nanotube x-ray technology.
Varex U.S. and Varex Germany opposed, arguing CETTEEN had not filed any such misappropriation claims in Germany; the German suit involved only corporate governance disputes over shareholder resolutions to oust each other from the joint venture.
CETTEEN later conceded it had not yet brought misappropriation claims in Germany but sought U.S. discovery to support "contemplated" claims.
The application was considered by a magistrate judge, who also had to address Varex Germany’s alternative request for reciprocal discovery and a protective order if discovery were granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1782 discovery is warranted for use in foreign proceedings	Discovery needed to support misappropriation claims (alleged or anticipated) in German litigation	No misappropriation claims have been asserted; only corporate issues pending	CETTEEN failed to show discovery was “for use” in a foreign proceeding under § 1782
Whether the “for use” requirement under § 1782 was met	Claims are within reasonable contemplation, not yet filed but planned	No evidence claims will be brought; no concrete plans or objective indicia shown	CETTEEN failed to provide reliable indicia that claims were within reasonable contemplation
Critical omission in ex parte application	Did not disclose misappropriation claims were merely contemplated, not filed	Omission misled the court and should bar the request	The omission was material; application denied on this ground as well
Motion for reciprocal discovery and protective order mootness	Protective order needed if CETTEEN gets discovery	Moot if CETTEEN's application is denied	Denied as moot in light of the application’s denial

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (Establishes discretionary factors and “reasonable contemplation” standard for § 1782 applications)
Certain Funds, Accounts &/or Investment Vehicles Managed by Affiliates of Fortress Investment Group LLC v. KPMG, LLP, 798 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (Explains “for use” requirement and objective indicium standard for § 1782)
Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 747 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (Clarifies reliable indications needed for contemplated proceedings under § 1782)