ZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 596 U.S. 619

Two consolidated §1782 discovery requests sought U.S. evidence for arbitration abroad: Luxshare v. ZF (DIS commercial arbitration in Germany) and Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States v. Lithuania (UNCITRAL ad hoc investor–state arbitration).
Luxshare served §1782 subpoenas on ZF and officers in Michigan; district court granted discovery and the Sixth Circuit denied a stay; Supreme Court took the case before judgment.
The Fund sought §1782 discovery from AlixPartners and Simon Freakley in SDNY; the district court granted relief and the Second Circuit affirmed.
Core legal question: whether the phrase “foreign or international tribunal” in 28 U.S.C. §1782 includes private arbitral bodies or is limited to governmental/intergovernmental adjudicative bodies.
The Supreme Court unanimously held §1782 reaches only governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies and concluded neither the DIS commercial panel nor the ad hoc UNCITRAL investor–state panel qualified.
Judgment: Sixth Circuit order denying quash reversed; Second Circuit judgment reversed; §1782 discovery for these arbitrations is not authorized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “foreign or international tribunal” in §1782 covers private arbitral bodies	§1782’s term “tribunal” is broad (per Intel) and can include private arbitral panels	“Foreign/international tribunal” implies governmental or intergovernmental adjudicator; private bodies fall outside §1782	§1782 is limited to governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies; private tribunals excluded
Whether the DIS commercial arbitration panel (Luxshare v. ZF) is a §1782 tribunal	DIS arbitration is foreign and adjudicative, so §1782 applies	DIS is a private, party‑created arbitration organization; no sovereign authority conferred	DIS panel is private and not a “foreign or international tribunal” under §1782
Whether the ad hoc UNCITRAL investor–state panel (Fund v. Lithuania) is a §1782 tribunal	Presence of a sovereign party and treaty selection clause makes the ad hoc panel intergovernmental	The treaty merely offers arbitration as a forum; the ad hoc panel is formed by party consent and lacks sovereign‑conferred official authority	The ad hoc UNCITRAL panel is not imbued with governmental authority by the states and is not a §1782 tribunal

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (recognizing §1782 can extend beyond traditional courts to some noncourt tribunals)
BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (treaty interpretation like contract interpretation to determine parties’ intent)
Stolt‑Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (arbitrators derive authority from parties’ agreement)
Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (arbitration is matter of consent)
AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643 (arbitrators’ authority flows from parties’ agreement)
Abdul Latif Jameel Transp. Co. v. FedEx Corp., 939 F.3d 710 (6th Cir.) (circuit precedent treating private arbitral panels as §1782 tribunals)
Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls‑Royce PLC, 975 F.3d 689 (7th Cir.) (circuit precedent rejecting §1782 coverage for private arbitrations)