In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520

Banco Popular Español (BPE) entered resolution in June 2017; Banco Santander S.A. acquired BPE after a government‑forced sale for €1. Petitioners (Mexican investors and U.S. asset managers) challenged the resolution in foreign fora and sought U.S. discovery about BPE’s finances under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
Petitioners filed § 1782 applications in SDNY seeking documents from Santander and its New York affiliate Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS).
The district court denied discovery as to Santander for lack of personal jurisdiction but granted discovery as to SIS and rejected a per se bar on obtaining documents located abroad.
On appeal the Second Circuit addressed (1) the statutory reach of § 1782’s phrase “resides or is found,” (2) whether Santander was subject to SDNY personal jurisdiction, and (3) whether § 1782 permits extraterritorial discovery.
The court held that “resides or is found” reaches to the outer limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process, concluded Santander lacked sufficient forum contacts to support specific jurisdiction, and held there is no categorical bar to § 1782 discovery of documents located overseas.
The court affirmed the district court’s grant of discovery against SIS as a proper exercise of discretion under Intel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of “resides or is found” in § 1782	‘‘Found’’ should reach as far as personal‑jurisdictional limits (flexible).	‘‘Found’’ should be limited to tag/general jurisdiction per In re Edelman.	§1782’s “resides or is found” reaches to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.
Personal jurisdiction over Santander in SDNY	Santander had New York contacts (retained NY banks for due diligence) sufficient for jurisdiction.	Santander’s relevant contacts did not proximately produce the evidence; most contacts postdated the resolution.	Specific jurisdiction lacking: Santander’s NY contacts were not the proximate reason the sought evidence was available.
Extraterritorial reach of § 1782 (documents abroad)	§1782 may reach documents abroad; no per se bar.	Presumption against extraterritoriality bars §1782 from reaching foreign‑located documents.	No categorical extraterritoriality bar; courts may consider document location in exercising discretion.
Abuse of discretion in ordering discovery from SIS (Intel factors)	Discovery from SIS was warranted; SIS resides in SDNY and is a non‑participant in foreign proceedings.	District court failed to apply Intel to SIS specifically and erred.	No abuse: Intel factors favor discovery from SIS; production not shown to be unduly burdensome or contrary to foreign policies.

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (defining general‑jurisdiction “at home” standard)
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (setting discretionary Intel factors for § 1782 requests)
In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2002) (prior treatment of § 1782’s “found” language)
Sergeeva v. Tripleton Int’l Ltd., 834 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding § 1782 not per se barred from reaching documents abroad)
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) (presumption against extraterritoriality canon)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (discussion of extraterritoriality principles)
Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (limits on specific jurisdiction; affiliation requirement)
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due‑process framework)
Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) (rules on overseas documents and discovery)