Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
821 F. Supp. 2d 289
D.D.C.2011Background
- Petitioners Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. and Hongsa Lignite (Lao PDR) Co. filed a §1782 ex parte petition seeking discovery from EDFI to aid a foreign proceeding opposing Laos’ enforcement of an arbitral award.
- Arbitral award against the Lao government was issued Nov. 4, 2009; exequatur proceedings followed in Paris under the New York Convention, resulting in August 2010 exequatur.
- Petition seeks information on French assets tied to Laos, notably Nam Theun 2 hydroelectric project and EDFI’s role as investor/operator.
- Amendments sought to reflect the Chevy Chase, Maryland office of EDF Inc. as respondent due to confusion over EDFI’s proper identity.
- EDFI and related EDF entities allegedly have offices outside D.C.; petitioners also seek to treat EDF Inc. as alter ego of EDF International/Group for §1782 purposes.
- Court ultimately denied the petition, finding no proper residence/found status for the respondents in this district and declining to exercise discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EDF Inc. or EDFI can be found or reside in DC for §1782. | Petitioners contend EDFI or its successors are found in the District. | EDF Inc. lacks residence/found status; EDFI not properly located in DC. | Petition dismissed for lack of authority to compel discovery. |
| Whether service on EDF Inc. suffices to bind EDF International/Group. | Service on EDF Inc. should suffice under alter-ego theory. | No jurisdiction over EDF Inc. or its alleged alter egos; alter-ego theory inadequately supported. | Alter-ego theory rejected; no basis to reach EDF International/Group. |
| Whether the petition should be dismissed or denied on discretion grounds. | Location of documents abroad justifies discovery to aid foreign proceeding. | Location outside U.S. undermines efficiency and policy; burden undue. | Court exercises discretion against granting relief; petition denied. |
| Whether amendment to name EDF Inc. as respondent would be permissible or useful. | Petition could be amended to name EDF Inc. as respondent. | No jurisdictional basis; amendment would be futile. | Amendment denied; petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. AMD, 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (§1782 authorizes but does not require discovery; factors for discretion)
- In re Caratube Int'l Oil Corp., 730 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2010) (two-step analysis; authority then discretion)
- Schmitz v. Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (factors guiding 1782 petitions under Intel framework)
- In re Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1997) (twin aims of 1782; efficiency and encouraging foreign assistance)
- In re Veiga, 746 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010) (location of documents as a discretionary factor in 1782 rulings)