short title, 1:25-cv-21144

Leandro Sanchez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to obtain discovery from Adverit International LLC and Abitos PLLC, for use in a contemplated criminal proceeding in Argentina.
Magistrate Judge Lett initially granted the application, allowing Sanchez to serve subpoenas.
Respondents, Adverit and Abitos, moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, arguing the dispute fell under a broad arbitration clause in a share purchase agreement (EPA) related to the sale of Adverit, which requires arbitration in Buenos Aires.
Sanchez opposed, arguing § 1782 evidentiary proceedings are not "suits" subject to compelled arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and that there was no jurisdictional basis for compelling arbitration under § 4 of the FAA.
The court found that Sanchez did not dispute the existence or scope of the arbitration clause, nor the involvement of non-signatories, but insisted on the inapplicability of arbitration to § 1782 proceedings.
The court determined it had jurisdiction under the New York Convention since the EPA involved foreign parties and commercial obligations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the FAA apply to § 1782 discovery proceedings?	§ 1782 discovery is a "proceeding," not a "suit," so FAA is inapplicable.	The broad language of the FAA (esp. § 3) covers "any suit or proceeding," including § 1782 actions.	FAA applies to § 1782 proceedings, satisfying "any suit or proceeding" under § 3.
Can the court compel arbitration and stay under FAA §§ 3 & 4?	Only § 4 can compel, and § 1782 is not a "suit"; no jurisdiction.	Both §§ 3 (stay) and 4 (compel arbitration) apply here; court has jurisdiction under the Convention.	Court can grant both remedies; § 1782 does not bar jurisdiction or relief.
Is there an enforceable arbitration agreement?	Does not contest, but argues arbitration can't govern § 1782.	There is a valid, enforceable agreement; all disputes must go to arbitration.	Valid agreement exists, and all disputes must be arbitrated.
Do non-signatories (e.g., Adverit, Abitos) have enforcement rights?	Not disputed.	Yes, via third-party beneficiary and estoppel doctrines.	Non-signatories can enforce the arbitration clause.

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court underscores liberal federal policy favoring arbitration and contract-based analysis under FAA.)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (Touches on FAA subject matter jurisdiction but not its application to suits or proceedings.)
Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC, 5 F.4th 1204 (Reaffirms that the FAA makes arbitration agreements as enforceable as other contracts.)
Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (Clarifies that parties may delegate questions of arbitrability to arbitrators.)
Bazemore v. Jefferson Cap. Sys., LLC, 827 F.3d 1325 (Elaborates on FAA’s presumption in favor of arbitration and summary judgment standard for enforcement.)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (Sets out the "look through" test for federal jurisdiction over arbitration disputes.)
Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (Confirms FAA does not itself create federal jurisdiction; must look to underlying dispute.)
Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (Establishes that the New York Convention confers jurisdiction in cases involving foreign parties and commercial arbitration agreements.)