342 F. Supp. 3d 448
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- In June 2017 the European Single Resolution Board and Spain's FROB ordered the sale of Banco Popular; Banco Santander acquired it for €1. Former investors allege they lost over €1 billion as a result.
- Two groups of former Banco Popular investors (Del Valle Ruiz and PIMCO) sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from Santander entities in the Southern District of New York to use in foreign proceedings challenging the resolution and related proceedings.
- Petitioners have foreign proceedings pending (EU General Court challenges, investor-state arbitration, and criminal writs in Spain) but Santander is not a party to those proceedings (though it has produced limited documents in Spain and moved to intervene in some foreign matters).
- Santander challenged the § 1782 applications principally on the ground that it is not "found" in the SDNY and that the court therefore lacks authority to compel discovery consistent with due process and personal-jurisdiction limits after Daimler and related precedent.
- The Court denied both petitions insofar as they sought discovery from Banco Santander entities (finding lack of authority/personal jurisdiction) but granted PIMCO’s petition for discovery from Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS), a U.S.-based affiliate with its principal place of business in the District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the person from whom discovery is sought "resides or is found" in the district for § 1782 | Santander has substantial, long‑standing business in NY (branches, supervision by NY DFS, NYSE listing, executives/operations in NYC) so it is "found" here | Santander is incorporated and headquartered abroad; NY contacts are insufficient after Daimler/Gucci to render it "found" in SDNY | Denied: Petitioners failed to show Santander is "found" in the District |
| Whether general (all‑purpose) jurisdiction exists over Santander | Santander’s continuous NY activities make it essentially at home in NY | Daimler/Goodyear/Gucci require corporation be at home (incorporation or principal place of business) absent exceptional circumstances | Denied: Contacts do not render Santander essentially at home; no exceptional circumstances |
| Whether specific (case‑linked) jurisdiction exists to compel discovery from Santander | Some NY activities (meetings, SEC letters, retained NY banks) relate to acquisition and thus to discovery sought | Petitioners’ cited NY activities occurred after the resolution/acquisition and do not relate to the foreign proceedings’ core subject (regulators’ resolution decision) | Denied: Contacts do not give rise to or relate to the foreign litigation; specific jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether discovery from SIS (U.S. affiliate) is authorized and appropriate | SIS is principal‑place‑of‑business in SDNY; documents needed for foreign tribunals and not otherwise available | Santander argued burden and questions about foreign‑located documents | Granted as to SIS: SIS is "found" in the District and Intel factors support granting discovery; court may order production (including documents abroad) |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (discusses discretionary factors for § 1782 aid)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires corporation be essentially at home)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li, 768 F.3d 122 (applying Daimler in SDNY context; explains specific vs. general jurisdiction analysis)
- Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 895 F.3d 238 (discusses § 1782 discretionary considerations in the Second Circuit)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (reinforces limits on general jurisdiction despite extensive in‑forum operations)
- In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171 (sets out statutory elements for § 1782 applications)