United States v. Global Fishing, Inc.
634 F.3d 557
9th Cir.2011Background
- US-Russia MLAT requests legal assistance in Russia's criminal investigation of Gontmakher, a US citizen and Global Fishing president.
- District court appointed two US co-commissioners under Article 7 of the MLAT and 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to collect evidence.
- August 2008 subpoena directed Global Fishing to produce documents; Global Fishing sought protective order to quash.
- Appellants argued Russian proceedings are corrupt/illegal and that MLAT supersedes § 1782 discretion.
- District court denied protective order, holding no constitutional violation and that MLAT procedure governs; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over district order | Gontmakher argues lack of finality defeats review. | Gontmakher contends order is final under § 1782 review. | Order is final and appealable. |
| Whether MLAT supersedes § 1782 discretion | Discretionary factors of § 1782 apply to MLAT requests. | MLAT supersedes substantive § 1782 discretion; review limited by treaty. | MLAT governs procedure; district court cannot exercise broad § 1782 discretion. |
| Scope of federal court review under MLAT vs § 1782 | Courts must apply Intel discretionary factors even for MLAT requests. | Treaty requires federal courts to execute requests with limited internal discretion. | Treaty limits independent § 1782 discretion; review constrained by MLAT. |
| Constitutional limitations on MLAT enforcement | Execution could violate due process and separation of powers due to foreign proceedings' flaws. | Executive assent to MLAT signals constitutionally permissible cooperation. | Compliance with MLAT does not offend the Constitution; limits exist but are narrower here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (discretionary nature of 1782 requests; not mandatory grant)
- In re Comm’r’s Subpoenas, 325 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (MLATs and 1782 interplay; authority on framework)
- In re Letters Rogatory from Director of Inspection of Government of India, 385 F.2d 1017 (2d Cir. 1967) (finality of § 1782 orders in rogatory context)
- Kestrel Coal Pty. Ltd. v. Joy Global Inc., 362 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 2004) (finality and scope of 1782 orders)
- Four Pillars Enters. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) (discretionary factors governing § 1782 requests)