Salt Mobile S.A. v. Liberty Global Inc., 1:20-mc-00153

Petitioner Salt Mobile S.A., a Swiss telecom, alleges Sunrise Communications AG breached an exclusivity agreement in a proposed joint venture by engaging with Liberty Global plc's public tender offer, causing significant damages.
Petitioner prepared a Swiss statement of claim and seeks documents, communications, and testimony from Liberty Global Inc. and Michael Fries in the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in contemplated Swiss civil proceedings.
Respondents are located in Denver; they oppose the § 1782 application, arguing Swiss courts can compel discovery, that the request is burdensome and seeks sensitive or privileged material, and pointing to prior Swiss injunctive proceedings.
The court found the three statutory § 1782 requirements satisfied: respondents are found in the district, a foreign proceeding is in reasonable contemplation, and Petitioner is an interested person.
Applying the Supreme Court's Intel factors, the court concluded the factors (nonparticipant status, foreign receptivity, lack of circumvention/bad faith, and burden) weigh in favor of granting discovery.
The court granted the § 1782 application, authorized service of subpoenas and Rule 30(b)(6) notices, allowed use of obtained evidence in related proceedings, and set a schedule for any protective-order briefing before administratively closing the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1782 statutory prerequisites are met	Salt: Respondents found in D. Colo; foreign proceeding in reasonable contemplation; Salt is an interested person	Respondents conceded the statutory elements	Court: Statutory requirements satisfied
Whether the first Intel factor (participant status) disfavors § 1782 relief	Salt: Respondents are non-parties to Swiss suit; §1782 aid therefore appropriate	Liberty: Swiss courts can compel third-party discovery; Respondents offered to submit to Swiss jurisdiction	Court: Factor favors Salt; declined to resolve dueling Swiss-law affidavits and noted unique testimonial value from Respondents
Whether Swiss tribunals are receptive to U.S. judicial assistance	Salt: Swiss courts receptive per former Zurich judge affidavit	Liberty: No authoritative proof Swiss courts would accept evidence obtained via §1782	Court: No authoritative proof of rejection; factor favors Salt
Whether request is circumvention, bad faith, or unduly burdensome	Salt: Requests narrow, time-limited, seek non-privileged material; proposed protective order reduces burden	Liberty: Requests seek sensitive/privileged business strategy, overlap with Sunrise, and reflect bad faith; prior Swiss injunction denial shows merit concerns	Court: Not bad faith or unduly burdensome; protective order adequate; Intel factors weigh for discovery

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (establishes discretionary Intel factors for § 1782 requests)
Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (cautions against extensive adjudication of foreign law and dueling affidavits)
In re Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997) (rejects a quasi-exhaustion requirement that petitioners must first seek discovery in the foreign forum)
In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1998) (places burden on opposing party to show foreign forum would reject § 1782 evidence)
In re Application of Malev Hungarian Airlines, 964 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1992) (discusses § 1782's aims to provide efficient international litigation assistance)
In re Chevron Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 141 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (permits § 1782 oral testimony even if some documents are available from a foreign party)