In Re Chevron Corp., 753 F. Supp. 2d 536

Chevron petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery from Daniel Rourke and Carlos Picone for use in foreign proceedings (Lago Agrio litigation and a United States–Ecuador arbitration).
Petition includes Ex Parte Application, Ex Parte Notice for Judicial Notice, and Joint Sur-Reply; a hearing occurred on November 23, 2010.
Discovery targets alleged reliance on the Cabrera damages report and asserts that Rourke and Picone prepared reports derived from or ghostwritten by others, tying opinions to fraud.
Arbitral bodies under UNCITRAL rules are treated as foreign tribunals for § 1782 purposes, supporting applicability to the arbitration.
The court analyzes the Intel discretionary factors (participant status, receptivity of the foreign tribunal, avoidance of foreign restrictions, and burden).
The court grants Chevron’s § 1782 application to conduct discovery and refers the matter to the magistrate for discovery proceedings; ex parte judicial notice is granted; sur-reply is denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether arbitral proceedings qualify as foreign tribunals under §1782	Arbitration qualifies as a foreign tribunal under UNCITRAL rules.	Not explicitly stated; concerns about receptivity and procedure are raised later.	Arbitral proceedings qualify as foreign tribunals; discovery permitted.
Whether the Intel discretionary factors favor granting §1782 discovery	Intel factors do not foreclose discovery and may weigh in Chevron's favor.	Factors could weigh against discovery due to burden and receptivity concerns.	Intel factors do not overwhelmingly tip against discovery; grant granted.
Whether Lago Agrio would be receptive to discovery	Ecuadorian court has indicated openness to discovery on damages and may review but still accept filings.	Respondents contend lack of receptivity and potential procedural obstacles.	Court finds potential receptivity and notes discovery may still be filed even if not evaluated by the court.
Whether the discovery request is unduly burdensome	Requests are tailored to verify reliance and provenance of expert work; not unduly burdensome.	Discovery is intrusive and burdensome, particularly for non-party experts.	Discovery not unduly burdensome under the circumstances.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (established the four discretionary factors for § 1782)
In re Application of Chevron Corp., 709 F.Supp.2d 283 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (holds that international arbitral bodies under UNCITRAL rules constitute foreign tribunals for §1782)