949 F. Supp. 2d 990
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Petitioner Dubey seeks an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain documents for use in a foreign or international tribunal.
- The underlying dispute is an AAA international dispute resolution arbitration between Microelectronics Technology, Inc. (Taiwan) and MTI (California) related to an Asset Purchase Agreement.
- MTI is defending against a Powerwave Technologies patent-infringement suit and seeks indemnification from Dubey and others per the Agreement.
- The arbitration panel has not yet been assembled and no case schedule has been set.
- The district court denies the § 1782 application, concluding private contract arbitration is not an international tribunal under § 1782.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private arbitration is a 'foreign or international tribunal' under § 1782 | Dubey argues private arbitral panels fall within 'tribunal'. | MTI argues private arbitration does not qualify under § 1782. | Private arbitration not a 'foreign or international tribunal' under § 1782. |
| Whether the arbitration is 'international' for § 1782 purposes | Arbitration conducted under International Dispute Resolution Procedures is international. | Arbitration is private and not within § 1782 scope regardless of international label. | Issue unnecessary to decide after ruling not a tribunal under § 1782. |
| Discretionary factors under Intel in denying discovery | Even if § 1782 standards are met, discovery should be allowed to aid a foreign tribunal. | Panel not assembled; foreign tribunal receptivity unknown; discovery unduly burdensome. | Court would not exercise discretionary relief; denies application. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Broadcasting Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999) (private arbitral panels generally not covered by § 1782)
- La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroeléctrica Del Río v. El Paso Corp., 617 F. Supp. 2d 481 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (private contract arbitration distinct from governmental tribunals)
- In re Babcock Borsig AG, 583 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D. Mass. 2008) (Intel expansion not to private arbitral tribunals)
- In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (private arbitral panels not clearly within § 1782 post-Intel)
- Arbitration in London, 626 F. Supp. 2d 882 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (private international arbitral tribunals generally not 'foreign tribunals' under § 1782)
- NBC v. Bear Stearns, 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999) (legislative history questioned reach of private arbitral tribunals)
- Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 685 F.3d 987 (11th Cir. 2012) (post-Intel opinions dividing on private arbitral tribunals)
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (establishes discretionary factors for § 1782 and broad intent to aid foreign tribunals)