In re Grynberg, 223 F. Supp. 3d 197

Applicants Jack J. Grynberg and affiliated companies seek discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from James Giffen, Mercator Corporation, and Cooley LLC for use in three Swiss proceedings alleging misappropriation and a bribery-based scheme to deprive Grynberg of a 20% interest in a Caspian oil field.
Grynberg has a long litigation history bringing substantially similar claims in U.S. and foreign courts; many prior suits were dismissed on the merits, and a Dutch court sanctioned him for failing to substantiate claims.
The Swiss action against Phillips 66 is pending and currently limited to threshold issues (standing, cause of action, statute of limitations); the judge indicated no evidence-taking was currently necessary.
Actions against Total (Suisse) and Eni Suisse are at the Swiss conciliation stage or not timely filed; Grynberg asserts he will file Statements of Claim once authorized.
District court jurisdictional prerequisites under § 1782 (targets found in district; applicant an interested person) are undisputed; dispute centers on whether the sought discovery is “for use” in foreign proceedings and on Intel discretionary factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the requested discovery is “for use” in foreign proceedings under § 1782	Discovery will be used to support Swiss claims against Swiss defendants and increase chances of success	Discovery not necessary or admissible; proceedings against some defendants not truly pending	Court: Discovery is “for use” as to Phillips 66 and plausibly for the other two; § 1782 statutory test satisfied
Whether Intel discretionary factors warrant granting relief	§ 1782 aid should be granted to assist foreign litigation and uncover relevant facts	Granting relief would circumvent U.S. courts’ prior rulings and finality policies; Grynberg is re-litigating dismissed claims	Court: Denied application based on Intel factor three — request seeks to evade finality/res judicata and prior U.S. dismissals
Whether targets being non-parties affects analysis (participant vs. non-participant)	Non-party discovery is appropriate; targets are located in the district	N/A (parties agreed targets are in district)	Court: Participant status not dispositive here; statutory jurisdiction exists but discretion denied due to other concerns

Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2015) (interpreting § 1782 “interested person” and “for use” requirement)
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (articulating discretionary factors for § 1782 requests)
Certain Funds, Accounts and/or Investment Vehicles v. KPMG, LLP, 798 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (defining “for use” and requirement for proceedings within reasonable contemplation)
Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (counseling against speculative inquiries into foreign admissibility of evidence)
Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing § 1782’s twin aims of international judicial assistance)