MENASHE, 552 F.Supp.3d 35

Petitioners (victims of the 2012 Burgas terrorist attack) sued several defendants in the Jerusalem District Court seeking compensatory and punitive damages, alleging LCB aided Hizballah; SGBL is alleged successor to LCB.
Respondent Covington & Burling LLP represents Abu Nahl and Nest Affiliates (minority LCB investors) in U.S. matters and has lobbied the Executive Branch on their behalf; Covington is headquartered in D.C.
Nest Affiliates previously sued LCB managers in the S.D.N.Y.; that U.S. action produced no discovery and relied largely on public materials (FinCEN Treasury Finding and civil forfeiture complaint).
Petitioners sought discovery from Covington under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in the Israeli Action, requesting essentially Covington’s entire client file relating to its representation of Nest Affiliates.
The Court found the § 1782 statutory prerequisites satisfied (Covington is located in the district; the requested discovery is for use in a foreign tribunal; petitioners are interested persons) but denied the application in the exercise of discretion.
The court’s discretionary denial rested on Intel factors: requested materials’ tenuous relevance to the Israeli Action, substantial burden (including likely privileged/work-product material), overbreadth/vagueness, and inefficiency given the tribunal’s ability to compel documents from participants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1782 statutory prerequisites are met	§1782 applies because Covington is in D.C., discovery is for use in Israeli tribunal, petitioners are interested persons	Covington did not dispute statutory prerequisites	Court: Statutory requirements satisfied
Whether Intel discretionary factors favor granting relief	Discovery is needed for Israeli Action and Covington may possess relevant documents	Covington is a nonparticipant but its files largely consist of privileged work product and it lacks control over DIFC materials	Court: Discretion exercised to deny; Intel factors weighed against petitioners
Relevance of requested documents to Israeli Action	Covington likely holds documents connecting LCB/DTME/el Fadl to alleged terrorism financing	Covington’s U.S. work related to LCB managers and visa lobbying; no discovery occurred in U.S. action; relevance is tenuous	Court: Relevance is weak and does not justify broad 1782 production
Burden, privilege, overbreadth, and efficiency	Petitioners say non-privileged factual material exists and is necessary	Covington: production would be burdensome, would require extensive privilege review, and risks disclosure of privileged contemporaneous counsel work; petitioners could obtain records via foreign forum	Court: Denied—burden and privilege concerns, overbreadth, and inefficiency outweigh petitioners’ minimal need

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (establishes §1782 statutory test and discretionary Intel factors)
Kiobel by Samkalden v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 895 F.3d 238 (participation of parties in foreign litigation reduces need for §1782 discovery)
Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79 (discusses §1782 and participant vs nonparticipant evidence sources)
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Chubb Ins. Co. of Canada, 384 F. Supp. 2d 45 (district court discretion in §1782 matters)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (principles on compelled production of evidentiary documents)
Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 276 F.R.D. 376 (privilege/work-product concerns in §1782 requests)
Infineon Techs. AG v. Green Power Techs. Ltd., 247 F.R.D. 1 (efficiency and circumvention considerations under §1782)
Dell Inc. v. DeCosta, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1 (burden of preparing privilege logs and scope concerns)