private preferences, public courts: the use of § 28 u.s.c. 1782 in us courts

7/23/2019 Private Preferences, Public Courts: The Use of § 28 U.S.C. 1782 in US Courts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/private-preferences-public-courts-the-use-of-28-usc-1782-in-us-courts 1/42

Private Preference, Public Process:

U.S. Discovery in Aid of Foreign and International Arbitration

Kevin E. Davis, Helen Hershkoff, and Nathan Yaffe1

October 30, 2015

Abstract

e e!a"ine #hether the $arties to international co""ercial arbitration o%&ht to have

access to discover' thro%&h the federal co%rts of the (nited )tates. 2* (.).+ 1-*2

$er"its (.). co%rts to co"$el the e!chan&e of infor"ation for %se in a $roceedin& in aforei&n or international trib%nal./ t is %nclear #hether this lan&%a&e covers $roceedin&s

before $rivate arbitral trib%nals. s far as $olic' is concerned, $revio%s a$$roaches to this

%estion have foc%sed on an i"$ortant tension. On the one hand, %diciall' co"$elled

discover' a$$ears to be inco"$atible #ith the s$eed and si"$licit' often re&arded as

essential characteristics of $rivate arbitration. On the other hand, #hen an arbitration

a&ree"ent conte"$lates s%ch discover', co%rts o%&ht to &ive effect to the f%nda"ental

$olic' of res$ectin& the #ill of the $arties. e s%&&est that co%rts considerin& 1-*2

a$$lications o%&ht to &o be'ond these essentialist and contractarian a$$roaches and takeinto acco%nt broader $%blic interests. 4his re%ires consideration of the interests of non6

$arties #ho "a' be tar&eted for discover'7 the b%rden the $roceedin&s "i&ht $lace on

(.). co%rts and i"$lications for the co%rts8 abilit' to &enerate and deliver $%blic &oods7#hether the $roceedin&s #ill circ%"vent e!istin& li"itations on discover' or in so"e

other #a' co"$ro"ise the inte&rit' of (.). co%rts7 and the i"$act on $roviders of (.).

le&al services. e s%$$ort o%r $olic' anal'sis thro%&h a detailed revie# of recent

a$$lications %nder 1-*2, incl%din& those that did not res%lt in $%blished o$inions. O%r

e"$irical anal'sis reveals as6'et %nreco&ni9ed #a's in #hich 1-*2 has been %sed b'

$rivate $arties to international co""ercial arbitration to circ%"vent both forei&n anddo"estic li"itations on $re6filin& discover' and $re6%d&e"ent asset discover'. 4hese

findin&s, #hich #e ho$e #ill "otivate f%rther in%ir', s%&&est that (.). co%rts o%&ht to

be ca%tio%s in their #illin&ness to e!tend 1-*2 discover' to $rivate liti&ants in



be ca%tio%s in their #illin&ness to e!tend 1-*2 discover' to $rivate liti&ants in

1. Introduction

)ho%ld (.).6st'le discover' be a feat%re of $rivate arbitrationC 4raditionall', the ans#er has beena clear no./ voidin& (.). discover' #as %nderstood to be one of the "ain reasons for choosin&

arbitration over liti&ation and, indeed, for avoidin& the (.). co%rt s'ste". n a re"arkable t%rn, ho#ever, $arties to both investor6state and co""ercial arbitrations takin& $lace o%tside the (nited )tates have

be&%n to re%est discover'. Even "ore re"arkabl', the' have be&%n to call on (.). federal co%rts for

assistance in obtainin& s%ch discover' %nder a federal stat%te entitled ssistance to forei&n and

international trib%nals and to liti&ants before s%ch trib%nals,/ codified at 2* (.).+ 1-*2. 4he (.). co%rts

have diver&ed in their res$onses to these re%ests,2 in $art beca%se the a$$licable stat%tor' $rovision is

a"bi&%o%s3 and the onl' (.). )%$re"e +o%rt decision to inter$ret that $rovision did not s%arel'

consider its relevance in the conte!t of co""ercial arbitration. )ection 1-*2, $er"its, b%t does notre%ire, (.). federal co%rts to $rovide discover' assistance to forei&n or international trib%nals./ t is

%nclear #hether $rivate arbitral trib%nals #ith forei&n or international characteristics fall #ithin the sco$e

of this ter", and, if the' do, ho# (.). federal co%rts o%&ht to e!ercise their discretion in &rantin& or

den'in& re%ests.

e believe that cases involvin& re%ests to (.). co%rts for discover' %nder 2* (.).+. 1-*2

raise a $olic' %estion of first6order i"$ortance in the la# of civil $roced%re to #hat e!tent can $rivate

$arties, invokin& the a%thorit' of a $rivate a&ree"ent, control the reso%rces of the $%blicl' s$onsored

co%rtsC5

n other #ords, to #hat e!tent can $rivate $arties contract for $roced%re available onl' in a $%blicco%rt #hen the' alread' have contracted for a non6$%blic dis$%te resol%tion $rocess that is characteri9ed

b' an absence of s%ch $roced%reC 4#o of the a%thors have e!a"ined a variant on this to$ic, b%t that

earlier #ork foc%sed e!cl%sivel' on $arties to liti&ation #ho tr' to o$t o%t of the ordinar' r%les of civil

2 ;or cases holdin& 1-*2 covers co""ercial arbitration, see, e.&., In re innin& FHKG )hi$$in& +o.

=td., 2010 = 1-5-, at I*610 F).D. ;la. 2010G Jhereinafter Winning 7 In re :abcock :orsi& B, 5*3

;.)%$$.2d 233, 20 FD. >ass. 200*G Jhereinafter Babcock 7 In re Hall"ark +a$ital +or$., 53 ;.)%$$.2d51, 52 FD. >inn. 200-G Jhereinafter Hallmark 7 In re @o9 4radin& =td., ;.)%$$.2d 1221, 1222

FN.D. Ba. 200G Jhereinafter Roz . ;or cases holdin& 1-*2 does not cover co""ercial arbitration, see,

e.&., El <aso +or$. v. =a +o"ision Eec%tiva Hidroelectrica Del @io =e"$a, No. 0*620--1, 200 =

20-1* F5th +ir 200G Jhereinafter La Comision7 Nat8l :roadcastin& +o nc v :ear )tearns L +o



$roced%re #hile re"ainin& #ithin the $%blic co%rt s'ste" for the resol%tion of their dis$%te.- No# #e

consider $arties to $rivate forei&n or international arbitration #ho tr' to o$t into the $%blic co%rts and the

ordinar' r%les of civil $roced%re for the $%r$ose of obtainin& infor"ation ostensibl' for %se in the arbitral $roceedin&. Each of these scenarios raises the sa"e &eneral $olic' concerns abo%t contractin& for

$roced%re, b%t the a$$lication to forei&n or international arbitration forces %s to consider at least t#o ne#iss%es. One of those iss%es is #hether the (.). co%rts sho%ld take the sa"e a$$roach to re%ests for

discover' in connection #ith forei&n or international arbitration as the' do in connection #ith do"estic

arbitration. n other #ords, sho%ld contractin& for $roced%re be e%all' acce$table #hether it involves

do"estic, forei&n, or international arbitral $roceedin&sC nother iss%e is #hether re%ests for discover'

for %se in $rivate arbitration "erit the sa"e res$onse as re%ests connected to $roceedin&s before $%blic

bodies s%ch as forei&n co%rts, or trib%nals a%thori9ed b' treatiesC Or to $%t it another #a', is $lacin& (.).

%dicial reso%rces at the dis$osal of $artici$ants in $rivate $roceedin&s abroad an' different fro" $%ttin&the" at the dis$osal of $artici$ants in non6(.). $%blic $roceedin&sC

4he e!istin& literat%re abo%t discover' re%ests %nder 2* (.).+. 1-*2 lar&el' i&nores these

%estions,* #hich #e re&ard as f%nda"ental to notions of $art' a%tono"' and instit%tional ada$tation.

+o%rts and co""entators concl%din& that $rivate arbitral trib%nals fall o%tside the lan&%a&e of the stat%te

take an a$$roach #e think is best described as essentialist the' foc%s on #hether %diciall' co"$elled

discover' is co"$atible #ith their %nderstandin& of the essential characteristics of arbitration. 4he

essentialist $osition is allied #ith an obective notion of $art' $reference for r%les of $roced%re that is

sha$ed b' e!istin& instit%tional for"s. 4he leadin& alternative to the essentialist a$$roach is one #e labelcontractarian. 4he contractarian a$$roach s%&&ests that if the arbitration a&ree"ent, $ro$erl' inter$reted,

$er"its the re%est for %dicial assistance to aid in discover', a co%rt sho%ld accede to the re%est in order

to co"$l' #ith a &eneral $olic' in favor of enforcin& arbitration a&ree"ents. 4he contractarian $osition is

6 e foc%s here on $arties #ho atte"$t to %se a co"bination of $%blic and $rivate $rocesses to resolve a

sin&le dis$%te. <arties "i&ht $refer to %se e!cl%sivel' $%blic or $rivate $rocesses to resolve an' &iven

dis$%te, b%t choose different "ethods to resolve different t'$es of dis$%tes that "i&ht arise fro" theirrelationshi$. ;or doc%"entation and anal'sis of this latter $heno"enon, see +hristo$her @. Draho9al L

Erin O8Hara O8+onnor, %nbundling #rocedure& Car'e(Outs $rom Arbitration Clauses, ;=. =. @ EM.

15 F201G.



allied #ith a s%bective notion of $art' $reference that is d'na"ic and less constrained b' e!istin&

instit%tional for"s.

:oth the essentialist and contractarian a$$roaches ca$t%re i"$ortant as$ects of the diffic%lt iss%esthat $ertain to liti&ant choice and dis$%te resol%tion $rocesses. ;or "an' $arties, %diciall' co"$elled

discover'b' #hich #e "ean $roced%res s%ch as de$ositions, interro&atories, and doc%"ent $rod%ctionthat "andate or $er"it infor"ation e!chan&e related to the $arties8 clai"s and defenses after the initiation

of the la#s%it b%t before a hearin& on the "eritsis inco"$atible #ith the essentialist conce$t of

arbitration. 4his "eans that even on the contractarian vie#, there are "an' sit%ations in #hich $rovidin&

assistance #o%ld be inconsistent #ith the intentions of the $arties to the arbitration a&ree"ent. t the

sa"e ti"e, the contractarian a$$roach ackno#led&es the f%nda"ental val%e of res$ectin& the intentions of

the $arties to an arbitration a&ree"ent concernin& the $roced%re that sho%ld be %sed to resolve their

dis$%te.:oth the essentialist and the contractarian a$$roaches i&nore another set of considerations that

o%&ht to be taken into acco%nt b' (.). co%rts #hen decidin& #hether to co"$el discover' in connection

#ith arbitration %nder 1-*2 the interests of the $%blic. +onsider an arbitration a&ree"ent that e!$licitl'

a%thori9es arbitrators to seek the assistance of (.) co%rts in co"$ellin& oral testi"on' and doc%"ent

$rod%ction. Enforce"ent of s%ch an a&ree"ent i"$licates "ore than the interests of the $arties to the

arbitration or of the arbitrator. >ost obvio%sl', it affects the interests of the tar&ets of discover', #ho "a'

not be $arties to the arbitration a&ree"ent. 4his kind of discover' also affects the interests of those #ho

%se or #o%ld %se the (.). co%rts, #hich are a $%blic reso%rce in ever' sense of the ter" the' are&overned b' $%blic la#, f%nded b' ta! dollars, and their %d&es are considered to be $%blic officials. :%t

the availabilit' of discover' assistance %nder 1-*2 carries %nreco&ni9ed costs that need to be

considered it affects the co%rt8s allocation of reso%rces, es$eciall' d%rin& the c%rrent $eriod of b%d&etscarcit' #hen liti&ants face %e%in& and a narro#in& of $roced%ral o$tions710 it interferes #ith the co%rt8s

ca$acit' to develo$ ne# le&al $rinci$les in a trans$arent #a' &iven the nor"s of secrec' that are attached

to arbitration7 it s%$$resses the co%rt8s abilit' to &enerate infor"ation as a b'6$rod%ct of liti&ation that is

%sef%l to cons%"ers, re&%lators, and f%t%re liti&ants, beca%se of the closed nat%re of arbitral $roceedin&s7

and it affects the inte&rit' of the co%rts to the e!tent it allo#s $arties to circ%"vent increasin&l' strict

li"itations on discover' ordinaril' i"$osed in (.). liti&ation. Of co%rse, there also "a' be benefits to the $%blic associated #ith co"$ellin& discover' %nder 1-*2, incl%din& those that flo# to (.). $roviders of

le&al services #ho earn reven%e fro" re$resentin& the affected $arties. t is far fro" clear, ho#ever,

#hether those benefits o%t#ei&h the costs.



arbitration a&ree"ents that $re6co""it to discover' %nder 1-*2 are co"$atible #ith the $%blic interest7

at a "ini"%", there is no reason to $res%"e that the $arties to s%ch a&ree"ents take the $%blic interest

into acco%nt. s t#o of the a%thors have ar&%ed else#here, in the absence of clear stat%tor' direction, %d&es char&ed #ith re&%latin& access to the $%blic co%rts sho%ld take the $%blic interest into acco%nt

#hen decidin& #hether to res$ect the $arties8 a&ree"ents abo%t the ter"s on #hich s%ch access isavailable.12

s a baseline for disc%ssion, #e be&in b' describin& the t'$es of discover' available in

$roceedin&s before the (.). co%rts as #ell as the assistance $rovided b' the (.). co%rts in connection

#ith $roceedin&s in do"estic arbitral trib%nals and $%blicl'6s$onsored forei&n or international trib%nals.

&ainst this back&ro%nd, #e t%rn to %nresolved and controversial %estions of the t'$es of assistance that

o%&ht to be "ade available in $rivate arbitration that does not %alif' as do"estic. e anal'9e the te!t

and le&islative histor' to 2* (.).+. 1-*2, and consider the si&nificance of ?%stice Binsb%r&8s o$inion in Intel , the first and onl' )%$re"e +o%rt case concernin& 1-*2.13 4hen #e describe the t'$es of $rivate

arbitration6related a$$lications that have been "ade %nder 1-*2 since Intel #as handed do#n. 4hese

incl%de a s%r$risin& n%"ber of a$$lications desi&ned to %ncover infor"ation abo%t a $art'8s assets before

a %d&"ent has been entered, rather than infor"ation bearin& on the "erits of the dis$%te, a %se of the

stat%te that al"ost certainl' #as not conte"$lated b' its drafters. Ne!t #e consider the $olic'

considerations that (.). co%rts o%&ht to take into acco%nt #hen faced #ith a re%est for assistance b'

arbitral $arties or an arbitrator in a forei&n or international $roceedin&.

2. Bacground

a. Discovery in U.S. !ourts

Discover' $ractice in the (nited )tates &enerall' is re&arded as e!ce$tional fro" the $ers$ective

of other le&al s'ste"s. 4he r%les that a%thori9e and even "andate the e!chan&e of infor"ation bet#een

the $laintiff and the defendant to a civil action in a federal co%rt Fand in "an' state co%rtsG are a"on& the

"ost distinctive feat%res of the (.). s'ste" of ad%dication.1 4he &%idin& $rinci$le #as e!$ressed b' the

)%$re"e +o%rt in the land"ark decision of Hickman '" *aylor& +ivil trials no lon&er need be carried onin the dark. 4he #a' is no# clear for the $arties to obtain the f%llest $ossible kno#led&e of the iss%es and

the facts before trial./15 (ntil recentl', the r%les a%thori9in& infor"ation e!chan&e &enerall' #ere

defended as critical to a le&al s'ste" that de$ends $ri"aril' %$on $rivate liti&ation, rather than



the r%les of discover' face criticis" fro" "an' %arters as e!$ensive, ti"e6cons%"in&, and s%bect to

strate&ic "is%se.1-

ltho%&h discover' $ractice is s%bect to "odification b' the $arties,1*

it also is s%bect, andincreasin&l' so, to strict %dicial oversi&ht and li"itations %nder the ;ederal @%les.1 >oreover,

traditionall', and %nder c%rrent federal $ractice, o$$ort%nities for discover' before a la#s%it has beenco""enced are li"ited Fand lar&el' disfavoredG.20

n addition, the infor"ation available thro%&h discover' "ostl' concerns clai"s and defenses,21

not#ithstandin& the $arties8 strate&ic interest in obtainin& infor"ation abo%t the nat%re, val%e, and

location of the other $art'8s assets.22 Ho#ever, this kind of asset discover'/ is t'$icall' ordered onl'

after a %d&"ent has been rendered.23 4he ;ederal @%les do not &enerall' conte"$late $re%d&"ent asset

discover',2 and nearl' ever' state re%ires that a clai"ant obtain a favorable %d&"ent before asset

discover' is available.25 %d&"ent creditor, ho#ever, often "a' %se the discover' $rocess to %ncoverinfor"ation abo%t assets on a &lobal scale.2 )%ch re%ests are s%bect to the ordinar' relevance

re%ire"ents on discover' re%ests, defined in ter"s of likelihood of leadin& to %d&"ent satisfaction,

even at the $ost6%d&"ent sta&e.

16 ee Beoffre' +. Ha9ard, ?r., $rom W+om No ecrets Are Hid , - 4EP. =. @ EM. 15, 1 F1*G

Far&%in& that discover' has achieved near6constit%tional stat%s in the (nited )tatesG.

17 >artin H. @edish L +olleen >cNa"ara, Back to t+e $uture& Disco'ery Cost Allocation and 7odern

#rocedural *+eory, - BEO. )H. =. @ EM. --3 F2011G.

18 ee, e"g", ;ed. @. +iv. <. 2 Faddressin& sti$%lations abo%t discover' $roced%reG.

19 ;or e!a"$le, de$ositions no# are s%bect to $res%"$tive ti"e li"its, altho%&h the' "a' be altered b'

the district co%rt. ee ;ed. @. +iv. <. 30.



4he ;ederal @%les &overnin& discover' also "ake a clear distinction bet#een infor"ation

e!chan&e bet#een the $arties and infor"ation that "a' be de"anded fro" a third $art' #ho is not %nder

the control of one of the $arties. ;or e!a"$le, altho%&h @%le 2 "andates the e!chan&e of infor"ation bet#een the $arties that "a' be %sed to s%$$ort clai"s and defenses #itho%t a#aitin& a discover'

re%est,/2- #itnesses #ho are so desi&nated are not %nder an obli&ation to $rovide infor"ation abo%t thetesti"on' the' #ill $rovide. ltho%&h the "echanis" of oral de$osition "a' be %sed to %estion an'

$erson, if the de$onent is not a $art', the notice of de$osition is not s%fficient to co"$el the #itness8s

attendance.2* s one federal "a&istrate %d&e has e!$lained, Orders barrin& the takin& of . . . de$ositions

alto&ether are both %n%s%al and disfavored . . . On the other hand, non6$art' #itnesses "a' be s%bect to

so"e#hat &reater $rotection a&ainst costl' b%t "ar&inall' relevant discover' than are the $arties./ 2 4he

23 4he )%$re"e +o%rt has recentl' cited the end%rin& relevance of the historical r%le/ barrin& $re6

%d&"ent discover' and attach"ent. ee Br%$o >e!icano de Desarrollo v. lliance :ond ;%nd, 52- (.).

30*, 330 F1G F r%le of $roced%re #hich allo#ed an' $ro#lin& creditor, before his clai" #asdefinitel' established b' %d&"ent . . . to file a bill to discover assets, or to i"$each transfers, or interfere

#ith the b%siness affairs of the alle&ed debtor, #o%ld "anifestl' be s%sce$tible of the &rossest ab%se./G

Fcitations o"ittedG.

24 Kern le!ander, *+e 7are'a In9unction and Anton #iller Order& *+e Nuclear Weapons o! )nglis+

Commercial Litigation, 11 ;=. ?. N4Q= =. *-, 512 F1-G FJ)%ch J$re%d&"ent discover' orders in

the (nited )tates #o%ld infrin&e the defendantQs d%e $rocess ri&hts %nder the ;ifth and ;o%rteenth

"end"ents./G. 4he $arties are re%ired %nder ;ederal @%le 2FaG, #itho%t a#aitin& a discover' re%est,

to $rovide to the other $arties . . . for ins$ection and co$'in& . . . an' ins%rance a&ree"ent %nder #hich

an ins%rance b%siness "a' be liable to satisf' all or $art of a $ossible %d&"ent in the action or to

inde"nif' or rei"b%rse for $a'"ents "ade to satisf' the %d&"ent./ ;ed. @. +iv. <. 2FaGF1GFGFivG.

25 Eric B. alraven, W+y Do :ou Need to ;no4 W+at I Ha'e6 It Is *ime !or A Ne4 tandard Regarding

t+e Disco'erability o! Net Wort+, 20 <<. DMO+. 2-1, 2-3 n.3 F200*G Fs%rve'in& state r%les on $re6

%d&"ent asset discover' to de"onstrate the near %niversal $rohibition on the $racticeG



;ederal @%les li"it the %se of #ritten interro&atories to the $arties the"selves,30 and the $rod%ction of

$ro$ert' fro" a non6$art' is s%bect to the &reater $rotections of ;ederal @%le 5 #hich re%ires iss%ance

of a s%b$oena.31

;inall', the discover' $rocess as a #hole no# is s%bect to the li"itin& $rinci$le of

$ro$ortionalit'a conce$t #ith #hich le&al s'ste"s o%tside the (.). are fa"iliar Faltho%&h in differentconte!ts32Gthat a%thori9es and even re%ires the %d&e to %se discretion in li"itin& the sco$e of

discover' of even relevant infor"ation #hen the costs are tho%&ht to e!ceed the benefits.33 ssessin&

#hether a discover' re%est is $ro$ortional to the nat%re of the liti&ation s%rel' is affected b' the non6

$art' stat%s of the tar&et of the discover' re%est. ndeed, %nder certain circ%"stances the co%rt "a' order

rei"b%rse"ent of a non6$art'8s costs of co"$l'in& #ith a discover' re%est.3

b. Discovery in Arbitration Proceedings

O%r foc%s here is on sit%ations in #hich the $arties seek to %se the infor"ation obtained thro%&h

discover' not in a dis$%te that is $endin& in and to be resolved b' a federal co%rt, b%t rather in a forei&n

or international arbitration before a $rivatel'6s$onsored trib%naland so"eti"es, si"$l' in

conte"$lation of a forei&n or international arbitration that has not 'et been filed.

Discover' has traditionall' $la'ed onl' a li"ited role in arbitration $roceedin&s.35 >an'

arbitration a&ree"ents onl' address the iss%e indirectl', thro%&h instr%"ents incor$orated b' reference,

#hich %s%all' either are the r%les of the arbitration instit%tion the' have selected or the $roced%ral la#the' have selected to &overn the arbitration F#hich is nearl' al#a's the la# of the arbitral seat the $arties

have chosenG.3 4hose r%les and la#s t'$icall' &rant arbitrators broad discretion over the "atter.3- n

$ractice, ho#ever, that discretion a$$ears to be e!ercised in a restrained fashion.3* 4he conventional vie#is that discover' is &ranted onl' for s$ecific doc%"ents, or for cate&ories of doc%"ents defined b'

$artic%lar li"itations Fe.&., a%thorAreci$ient, s%bect "atter, dateG.3 s to testi"on', "ost instit%tional

r%les sa' nothin& abo%t the $o#er of the trib%nal to order a $art' to $roc%re the attendance of a #itness at

the hearin&.0 s a res%lt, third $arties are considered be'ond the reach of the trib%nal.1 Ho#ever, the

$o#er to co"$el attendance of cor$orate officers, senior e"$lo'ees, or other ke' #itnesses #ithin the

29 <ol'cast 4ech. +or$. v. (niro'al, nc., 10 = 13**, at I3 F).D.N.Y. )e$t. 20, 10G.



control of one $art' is $res%"$tivel' considered to be $art of the trib%nal8s inherent evidence6takin&

a%thorit'.2

nsofar as asset discover' is concerned, the scant literat%re #e have fo%nd s%&&ests that it is onl'available, if at all, fro" a co%rt after an a#ard has been rendered, in connection #ith the $rocess of

reco&nition and enforce"ent. <rior to an a#ard bein& rendered, $arties are left to their o#n devices tolocate and identif' assets.3 4he sit%ation chan&es, ho#ever, after the a#ard has been rendered if the

s%ccessf%l $art' seeks %dicial reco&nition and enforce"ent, in #hich case the iss%e is &overned b' the

r%les of the relevant co%rt. ;or instance, if a $art' seeks reco&nition and enforce"ent of a forei&n arbitral

a#ard in a (.). co%rt, the Ne# York +onvention/ #ill "ost likel' a$$l'. 4he +onvention sets o%t the

&ro%nds on #hich reco&nition and enforce"ent "a' be ref%sed. t also $rovides that if the a#ard is

35 ?. >aria Blover, Disappearing Claims and t+e )rosion o! ubstanti'e La4, 12 Y=E =.?. 3052,

305 n.5 F2015G FBenerall', arbitration cla%ses leave discover' to the arbitrator8s discretion, b%t it is

#ell reco&ni9ed that discover' is less available in arbitration than in liti&ation./G7 ?ason ;. Darnall L

@ichard :ales, Arbitral Disco'ery o! Non(#arties, 2 ?. D)<. @ E). 321, 32 F2001G F4he $o#er of

discover' &iven to an arbitrator is li"ited to those $o#ers &iven b' the $arties./G. ee also :%rton v.

:%sh, 1 ;.2d 3*, 30 Fth +ir. 1*0G F)tatin& that $arties a&reein& to arbitrate relin%ish the ri&ht to

certain $roced%ral niceties #hich are nor"all' associated #ith a for"al trial . . . One of these

accoutrements is the ri&ht to $re6trial discover'. hile an arbitration $anel "a' s%b$oena doc%"ents or#itnesses . . . the liti&atin& $arties have no co"$arable $rivile&e/G.

36 B@Y :. :O@N, , N4E@N4ON= +O>>E@+= @:4@4ON, 23222 F2d ed. 201G.

37 ee5 e"g", (.).+. -7 ( N;. @:4@4ON +4 -, - (.=.. - F15G Jhereinafter

%AA7 ( N;. @:4@4ON +4 1-, - (.=.. 1- F2000G Jhereinafter R%AA. "on&

instit%tional r%les, the =ondon +o%rt of nternational rbitration r%les contain one of the

"ost detailed $rovisions. 4he r%les $er"it the arbitrators toT cond%ct s%ch en%iries as

"a' a$$ear to the rbitral 4rib%nal to be necessar' or e!$edient . . . and to order an'$art' to "ake an' $ro$ert' site or thin& %nder its control and relatin& to the s%bect



reco&ni9ed and enforced, the $art' holdin& the a#ard is entitled to rel' on local r%les &overnin&

enforce"ent.5 s noted above, (.). la# $er"its asset discover' in aid of enforce"ent.

c. Discovery Assistance fro" U.S. !ourts in Do"estic Arbitration

n addition to re%estin& a discover' order fro" the arbitral trib%nal, a $art' "a' seek the

assistance of (.). co%rts in co"$ellin& discover' related to an on&oin& arbitration. ltho%&h o%r foc%s is

on re%ests for assistance #ith discover' in aid of $rivate forei&n or international arbitration, it is hel$f%l

to co"$are re%ests for assistance #ith discover' in aid of other t'$es of $roceedin&s. ;or instance, (.).

co%rts also receive re%ests for assistance #ith do"estic arbitrationsthat is to sa' arbitrations based in

the (.). n those cases, the federal district co%rt in the district in #hich the arbitration takes $lace "a'

assist #ith discover' as $rovided in - of the ;ederal rbitration ct F;G

4he arbitrators. . . "a' s%""on in #ritin& an' $erson to attend before the" or an' of the" as a

#itness and in a $ro$er case to brin& #ith hi" or the" an' book, record, doc%"ent, or $a$er

#hich "a' be dee"ed "aterial as evidence in the case. . . . Jf an' $erson or $ersons so

39 N4HN O8>==EY, @ (=E) O; EMDEN+E N N4E@N4ON= @:4@4ON, S3.35 F2012G F@e%ests

for disclos%re #hich look to obtain Uall doc%"ents8 #ithin a va&%e ti"e fra"e, Urelatin&8 to a broad to$ic,

#ill in "ost cases be %d&ed b' trib%nals to be too broad or in violation of the Unarro# and s$ecific8standard,/G7 ?E;; N+Y>E@ , <@O+ED(@E ND EMDEN+E N N4E@N4ON= @:4@4ON *0 F2012G

F)$ecificit' is the ke' "eans to ens%re that doc%"ent $rod%ction in arbitration does not e%ate to broad6

ran&in& co""on la# st'le discover'./G.

40 :O@N, supra note 2*, at 2350.

41 4he $ict%re is so"e#hat "ore co"$licated in the (nited )tates %nder the ;. ee in!ra te!t

acco"$an'in& note -.



s%""oned to testif' shall ref%se or ne&lect to obe' said s%""ons, %$on $etition the (nited

)tates district co%rt for the district in #hich s%ch arbitrators, or a "aorit' of the", are sittin& "a'

co"$el the attendance of s%ch $erson or $ersons before said arbitrator or arbitrators.

-

t first &lance, it is not obvio%s that this $rovision even $er"its $re6hearin& discover' readliterall', - onl' $er"its co%rts to co"$el testi"on' and doc%"ent $rod%ction in the $resence of the

arbitrators. Nonetheless, it is acce$ted that there is an i"$lied $o#er to order $re6hearin& discover' fro"

$arties to the arbitration a&ree"ent.* e have located no re$orted decision or co""entar' s%&&estin&

that this $re6hearin& discover' e!tends to incl%de asset discover'. nd in an' event, the $arties to an

arbitration a&ree"ent "a' e!$and, at least as bet#een the"selves Fas o$$osed to third $artiesG, the $o#er

of the trib%nal to order discover'.

4he sco$e of - is li"ited in at least t#o i"$ortant res$ects. ;irst, the circ%it co%rts of a$$eal aredivided on #hether - $er"its arbitrators to order $re6hearin& discover' or de$osition fro" third $arties

and the )%$re"e +o%rt has not addressed the %estion.50 )econd, - onl' e"$o#ers arbitratorsnot

$artiesto s%b$oena doc%"ents or #itnesses.51 4he $rovision like#ise onl' a%thori9es federal co%rts to

47 (.).+. - F2000G.

48 ee N.Y.+. :ar +o"". nt8l +o""ercial Dis$%tes, Obtaining )'idence !rom Non(#arties in International Arbitration in t+e %nited tates, 20 >. @ EM. N48= @:. 21 F200G Jhereinafter Obtaining )'idence citing =ife @eceivables 4r%st v. )'ndicate 102 at =lo'd8s of =ondon, 5 ;.3d 210, 21- F2d +ir.

200*G FJn arbitratorQs $o#er over $arties ste"s fro" the arbitration a&ree"ent, not section - T here

a&ree"ents so $rovide, that a%thorit' incl%des the $o#er to order discover' fro" the $arties in arbitration

since the ; lets $arties tailor so"e, even "an' feat%res of arbitration b' contract, incl%din& . . .

$roced%re./G Fcitations and %otations o"ittedG.

49 ee5 e"g", <ane$%cci v. Honi&"an >iller )ch#art9 L +ohn ==<, 2*1 ;.$$!. *2, *5 Fth +ir. 200*G

F%$holdin& arbitration cla%se "andatin& discover' cond%cted $%rs%ant to the ;ederal @%les of +ivil

<roced%re/G7 n&e" nc. v. Kidne' +tr. of Del. +nt'., *- ;.)%$$. *-*, **3 FN.D. ll. 15G Fenforcin&

s%b$oena for doc%"ents and de$osition testi"on' #hen the $arties a&reed to arbitrate their dis$%te



enforce s%b$oenas iss%ed b' the arbitrators. 4here is no $rovision for assistance #ith discover' in

conte"$lation of an arbitration $roceedin& that has not 'et been filed.

<arties to do"estic arbitrations also so"eti"es seek assistance #ith discover' fro" state ratherthan federal co%rts. 4he $o#ers of state co%rts in s%ch cases are &overned b' state la#s that differ in so"e

res$ects fro" the ;, and $robabl' are not $ree"$ted b' the federal stat%te.52 >an' states have ado$teda version of either the (nifor" rbitration ct F(G or the @evised (nifor" rbitration ct F@(G,

both of #hich contain lan&%a&e on discover' that is s%bstantiall' si"ilar to the lan&%a&e of the ;. 4he

relevant casela# effectivel' tracks inter$retations of the ;.53 Ho#ever, so"e state le&islation,

incl%din& arbitration stat%tes based on the ( and the @(, is "ore e!$licit than the ; abo%t

$er"ittin& $re6hearin& discover'.5 >oreover, the @(, and so"e other state le&islation as #ell,

$er"its state co%rts to enforce discover'6related orders iss%ed b' arbitrators in other states.55 ccordin&l',

a $erson "a' be able to circ%"vent an' territorial li"itations on - of the ; b' a$$l'in& to a stateco%rt in the state #here a #itness is located.

d. Statutory Fra"e#or for Discovery fro" U.S. !ourts in Aid of Public Proceedings

(.). co%rts also receive re%ests for assistance #ith $roceedin&s before $%blicl'6s$onsored

forei&n or international trib%nals. ;or o%r $%r$oses a $%blic trib%nal is an' ad%dicative bod' that is either

aG an a&enc' or instr%"entalit' of a forei&n nation state or bG created b' a treat' bet#een s%ch nation

states.

5

)o, for e!a"$le, liti&ation in the En&lish Hi&h +o%rt #o%ld %alif' as a $roceedin& before a $%blic trib%nal, as #o%ld arbitration in the nternational +entre for the )ettle"ent of nvest"ent Dis$%tes

F+)DG F#hich is created b' the +)D +onventionG. :' contrast, arbitration before the =ondon +o%rt of

nternational rbitration #o%ld %alif' as a $roceedin& before a $rivate trib%nal.@e%ests for discover' in aid of $roceedin&s before non6(.). $%blicl'6s$onsored trib%nals are

&overned b' 2* (.).+. 1-*2. s no# enacted, 1-*2 $rovides in relevant $art

4he district co%rt of the district in #hich a $erson resides or is fo%nd "a' order hi" to

&ive his testi"on' or state"ent or to $rod%ce a doc%"ent or other thin& for %se in a

$roceedin& in a forei&n or international trib%nal, incl%din& cri"inal investi&ationscond%cted before for"al acc%sation. 4he order "a' be "ade . . . %$on the a$$lication of

an' interested $erson and "a' direct that the testi"on' or state"ent be &iven, or the



doc%"ent or other thin& be $rod%ced, before a $erson a$$ointed b' the co%rt . . . 4o the

e!tent that the order does not $rescribe other#ise, the testi"on' or state"ent shall be

taken, and the doc%"ent or other thin& $rod%ced, in accordance #ith the ;ederal @%les of +ivil <roced%re.5-

4his version of the stat%te reflects 1 a"end"ents that re$laced the $hrase %dicial

$roceedin&/ #ith $roceedin& in a forei&n or international trib%nal./ 4he a"end"ents also e!$anded the

sco$e of the stat%te fro" testi"on' and state"ents to incl%de doc%"entar' evidence7 eli"inated the

re%ire"ent that the $roceedin&s be $endin&7 and $er"itted $ersons rather than co%rts or trib%nals to

a$$l' for assistance.5* 4hese refor"s #ere enacted in res$onse to the le&islative $ro$osals of the

+ol%"bia <roect on nternational <roced%re and #ere broadl' desi&ned to facilitate the cond%ct of

transnational liti&ation and thereb' $ro"ote international interco%rse./ 4he le&islative histor' $rovides

4he steadil' &ro#in& involve"ent of the (nited )tates in international interco%rse and the

res%ltin& increase in liti&ation #ith international as$ects have de"onstrated the necessit' for

stat%tor' i"$rove"ents and other devices to facilitate the cond%ct of s%ch liti&ation. Enact"ent

of the bill into la# #ill constit%te a "aor ste$ in brin&in& the (nited )tates to the forefront of

nations ad%stin& their $roced%res to those of sister nations and thereb' $rovidin& e%itable and

efficacio%s $roced%res for the benefit of trib%nals and liti&ants involved in liti&ation #ith

international as$ects. t is ho$ed that the initiative taken b' the (nited )tates in i"$rovin& its $roced%res #ill invite forei&n co%ntries si"ilarl' to ad%st their $roced%res.5

Des$ite the fact that reco&nition and enforce"ent $roceedin&s are a re&%lar feat%re ofinternational liti&ation, the 1 a"end"ents onl' evinced concern #ith $roceedin&s related to the "erits

of the dis$%te. 4he $%r$ose of the +o""ission that event%all' trans"itted the $ro$osed revisions to

+on&ress, as artic%lated b' the ct creatin& it, #as to i"$rove and codif' international $ractice in ci'il5

criminal5 and administrati'e proceedings./0 n kee$in& #ith this ai", both the +ol%"bia re$ort on #hich

the +o""ission relied, as #ell as the re$ort of the +o""ission itself, foc%sed on sec%rin& evidence to be

%sed d%rin& liti&ation.1 Once the $ro$osed revisions #ere in the hands of +on&ress, it referred to the" ascollectivel' seekin& to i"$rove %dicial $roced%res for servin& doc%"ents, obtainin& evidence, and

$rovin& doc%"ents in liti&ation #ith international as$ects./2 None of the relevant doc%"ents refer to

assets/ or enforce"ent $roceedin&s/ connected to liti&ation abroad.3 s #e shall see, this stands in



Intel5 have so%&ht to %se $roceedin&s in (.). co%rts as a #a' to locate assets before an a#ard has been

rendered.

4he "eanin& of the ter" trib%nal/ in this $rovision #as considered b' the (.). )%$re"e +o%rtin Intel .5 4he iss%e there #as #hether a %asi6%dicial trib%nal, in this case, the +o""ission of the

E%ro$ean +o""%nities actin& thro%&h the Directorate6Beneral for +o"$etition, %alified as a forei&ntrib%nal for the $%r$oses of the stat%te. 4he +o%rt concl%ded that the E%ro$ean +o""ission %alified for

1-*2 assistance &iven that it acted as a first6instance ad%dicator, co%ld deter"ine liabilit' and i"$ose

$enalties, and that its final dis$ositionrevie#able b' the E%ro$ean co%rts#as #ithin reasonable

conte"$lation.

4he +o%rt in Intel also confir"ed that even #hen $roceedin&s are conte"$lated or $endin& before

a %alif'in& trib%nal, a district co%rt8s co"$liance #ith a 1-*2 re%est is not "andator'./- 4he +o%rt

#ent on to &ive &%idance on the e!ercise of that discretion, b' $rovidin& the follo#in& fo%r factors F1G#hether the $erson fro" #ho" discover' is so%&ht is a $artici$ant in the forei&n $roceedin&,/ beca%se

the need for 1-*2 aid &enerall' is not as a$$arent as it ordinaril' is #hen evidence is so%&ht fro" a

non$artici$ant/7 F2G the nat%re of the forei&n trib%nal, the character of the $roceedin&s %nder#a' abroad,

and the rece$tivit' of the forei&n &overn"ent or the co%rt or a&enc' abroad to (.). federal6co%rt %dicial

assistance/7 F3G #hether the 1-*2 re%est conceals an atte"$t to circ%"vent forei&n $roof6&atherin&

61 Hans )"it L rth%r >iller, International Co(Operation in Ci'il Litigation@A Report on #racticesand #rocedures #re'ailing in t+e %nited tates, <@O?. ON N48= <@O+. O; +O=(>. ( NM. =. ). 1 F11G

Fobservin& the %n$aralleled &ro#th in civil liti&ation #ith international as$ects/ had created a need for

refor" of the $roced%res for solicitin& and $rovidin& international coo$eration in civil liti&ationT/G7

H.@. DO+. NO. ****, at 5 F13G F)ection 1-*2 "akes clear that . . . %dicial assistance "a' be so%&ht

not onl' to co"$el testi"on' and state"ents b%t also to re%ire the $rod%ction of doc%"ents and other

tan&ible evidence. t th%s reco&ni9es that the need for obtainin& tan&ible evidence "a' be as i"$erative asthe need for obtainin& oral evidence./G.

62 ). @ E<. NO. **15*0, at 1 F1G. ndeed, the $ro$osed a"end"ents foc%sed on iss%es e!cl%sivel'

relevant to "erits dis$%tes, s%ch as $er%r', forei&n official records, land title, and $atents. Id" at 161.



restrictions or other $olicies of a forei&n co%ntr' or the (nited )tates/7 and FG #hether the re%est is

other#ise %nd%l' intr%sive or b%rdenso"e./*

notable feat%re of this a$$roach is that it reects the forei&n discoverabilit' r%le/ favored b'so"e lo#er co%rts. 4hat r%le held that re%ests for assistance "%st be ref%sed #here the la# of the

re%estin& state does not $er"it the "eans of discover' re%ested. t #as "otivated b' a desire to avoidassistin& a $rivate $art' in circ%"ventin& forei&n discover' r%les both o%t of considerations of co"it'-0

and to effect%ate the $%r$ose of 1-*2.-1 +o%rts e"$lo'in& this r%le differentiated bet#een

discoverabilit', #hich #as ass%"ed to be easil' ascertainable, and ad"issibilit', #hich #as treated as a

"atter of co"$arative la#.-2 Intel effectivel' said that the lo#er co%rts had it back#ards, "akin& clear the

)%$re"e +o%rt $rioriti9ed ad"issibilit' over discoverabilit'.-3 4he +o%rt also r%led that reci$rocit'

concerns did not %stif' across6the6board ref%sal of assistance in discover' since assistance can be

conditioned on reci$rocal e!chan&e of infor"ation.-

68 Id" at 25. =o#er co%rts a$$l'in& Intel have cast the +o%rt8s a$$roach as involvin& t#o ste$s a

threshold in%ir' that asks #hether the re%est is a%thori9ed and then a discretionar' in%ir' that asks

#hether discover' sho%ld be &ranted. 4he threshold in%ir' ass%"es that discover' is a%thori9ed, tho%&hnot re%ired, #hen F1G it is directed at a resident of the district in #hich the co%rt sits7 F2G it is intended for

%se before a forei&n trib%nal7 F3G it is based %$on the a$$lication of a $erson interested in a forei&n $roceedin&7 and FG it does not re%ire disclos%re of $rivile&ed "aterials./ In re Han#ha 9del, nc., -

;. )%$$.2d 1-*, 1*0 FD. >ass. 2013G Fcitin& In re +hevron +or$., -2 ;. )%$$.2d 22, 2 FD. >ass.

2010G Fcitin& Intel , supra note , at 25GG. Onl' if the threshold is "et o%&ht the district co%rt $roceed to

the discretionar' factors.

69 ee5 e"g"5 In re sta >edica, ).., *1 ;.2d 1 F1st +ir. 12G Fre%irin& that 1-*2 a$$lications be

e!a"ined %nder the controllin& discover' r%les in the forei&n or international trib%nalG Jhereinafter Asta

7edica7 =o Ka +h%n v. =o 4o, *5* ;.2d 15, 15 F11th +ir. 1**G Fsa"eG.

70 ee In re =etter @o&ator' in the >atter of Elec Data )'sts +or$ 2 ; 3d 30* 311 F5th +ir 15G



e. $e%uests for Discovery fro" U.S. !ourts in Aid of Foreign Arbitration Post& Intel

No# #e t%rn to the foc%s of this cha$ter re%ests to (.). federal co%rts for assistance #ithdiscover' in aid of $roceedin&s before $rivate forei&n or international trib%nals. <rior to 200, there #ere

relativel' fe# decisions on re%ests of this sort, and the $%blished o$inions %nani"o%sl' reected the 1-*2 a$$lication in %estion.-5 Ho#ever, the attit%de of the co%rts a$$ears to have chan&ed since 200

as a res%lt of the decision in Intel , #ith "an' $ost6 Intel co%rts &rantin& 1-*2 a$$lications in connection

#ith forei&n co""ercial arbitration.

e atte"$ted to revie# all $ost6 Intel $%blished o$inions res%ltin& fro" 1-*2 a$$lications in

connection #ith $rivate arbitration, %lti"atel' identif'in& 22 $%blished o$inions.- Ho#ever, a &reat deal

of trial co%rt activit', $artic%larl' in the area of discover', is not reflected in $%blished o$inions.--

ccordin&l', #e also atte"$ted to revie# all 1-*2 a$$lications related to $rivate arbitration thata$$eared in the dockets of (.). district co%rts d%rin& the three6'ear $eriod fro" October 1, 2012 to

October 1, 2015. 4his docket research $rovided a "ore co"$lete $ict%re of the landsca$e of 1-*2

activit' than o%r revie# of $%blished o$inions.-* e "an%all' screened for 1-*2 a$$lications relatin& to

$rivate arbitration, incl%din& all a$$lications that referred to $roceedin&s before $rivate non6do"estic

arbitrations, even if the' also referred to $roceedin&s before forei&n co%rts or other forei&n or

international $%blicl'6s$onsored trib%nals. e anal'9ed the a$$lications #ith res$ect to the re%estin&

$art', the tar&et of the re%est, the ti"in& of the a$$lication in the conte!t of the $arties8 dis$%te, and

#hether the infor"ation so%&ht relates to the "erits or to a $art'8s assets. lon& all b%t the last of these

73 Intel , supra note , at 22 FW+en t+e !oreign tribunal 4ould readily accept rele'ant in!ormation

discovered in the (nited )tates, a$$lication of a forei&n6discoverabilit' r%le #o%ld be senseless./GFe"$hasis addedG.

74 Id . <rior to Intel , ho#ever, lo#er co%rts did not see" inclined to condition discover' assistance %nder

1-*2 on reci$rocal infor"ation e!chan&e. ee In re >alev H%n&arian irlines, ;.2d -, 101 F2d +ir.

12G. F+on&ress intended . . . 1-*2 #o%ld $rovide an aven%e for %dicial assistance to forei&n or

international trib%nals 4+et+er or not reciprocal arrangements eisted ./G Fe"$hasis addedG. n 7ale', thea$$licant had offered to en&a&e in reci$rocal discover' / Id at 102 n t sho%ld be noted that



di"ensions, the $rofile of the a$$lications that led to $%blished o$inions #as co"$arable to the $rofile of

the a$$lications %ncovered b' o%r docket research.

4he res%lts of o%r anal'ses of both the $%blished o$inions and the docket revie# are set o%t in the$$endi!. 4o s%""ari9e, the nat%re of the re%estor of the assistance never varied o%r search 'ielded no

instances in #hich arbitrators initiated the re%est.- @e%ests #ere invariabl' "ade b' one of the $artiesto the dis$%te, incl%din& a fe# cases in #hich the sa"e $art' "ade "%lti$le re%ests leadin& to $%blished

o$inions. Biven the lack of for"al involve"ent b' the arbitral trib%nal, it is interestin& to note that al"ost

none of the $%blished o$inions indicate #hether the 1-*2 a$$lication #as "ade #ith the consent or

even the kno#led&e of the arbitrator.*0

4he "aorit' of the $%blished o$inions involve re%ests for infor"ation to be obtained not fro"

the other $art' to the arbitration, b%t rather fro" a third $art' #ho had not assented to the arbitration

76 e cond%cted a search %sin& estla#8s Ke'cite service coverin& the ti"e $eriod of all $ost6 Intel

cases F?%ne 21, 200 thro%&h $resentG. ;ilterin& for onl' cases that cite to Intel , #e searched for those

incl%din& the #ord arbitration./ 4his &enerated res%lts, #hich #ere screened for red%ndanc' Fe.&. adistrict and a$$eals co%rt decision in the sa"e dis$%te #o%ld not both be citedG or irrelevance Fe.&. cases

concernin& invest"ent treaties #hich "erel' "ention $rivate arbitration #ere e!cl%dedG. (lti"atel', #e

identified 22 o$inions %sin& this "ethod. 4all'in& is not #itho%t co"$lication, &iven that international

co""ercial dis$%tes often involve si"%ltaneo%s $roceedin&s in different for%"s, #hich "a' incl%de both

co%rt and arbitral $roceedin&s. n at least one case, res$ondents dis$%ted #hether the 1-*2 a$$licant&en%inel' intended to %se the infor"ation so%&ht in the relevant forei&n co%rt $roceedin&, ar&%in& instead

that the a$$licant8s intention #as to %se it in arbitration #hile avoidin& the iss%e of arbitral trib%nals8

classification %nder 1-*2. ee In re >ichael ilson, 200- = 22213*, at I2 FD. +olo. ?%l' 2-, 200-G

F@es$ondents ar&%e that . . . the forei&n J%dicial trib%nals #ill not allo# the infor"ation so%&ht to be

%sed in the forei&n $roceedin&s. )$ecificall', @es$ondents contend that the infor"ation received is "ore

likel' to be %sed in $rivate arbitration $roceedin&s, #hich @es$ondents contend are not s%bect to )ection

1-*2./G. 4his case #as e!cl%ded in li&ht of the fact that b' its ter"s the a$$lication so%&ht infor"ation in

connection #ith a co%rt $roceedin&. ;inall', one case In re $$lication b' @hodian'l, 2011 (.). Dist.

=EP) -21* FD. Kan. 2011G Jhereinafter R+odianyl #as not fo%nd in estla# b%t #as disc%ssed at

len&th in )tron&, supra note . ;or a s%rve' of casela# involvin& 1-*2 re%ests in connection #ith

$roceedin&s before both $%blic and $rivate arbitral trib%nals, see B%nan )har"a, *+e A'ailability o!

ti 12/. Di ! % i $ i A bit ti A ! % C t D i i 2-FG Q



$roceedin& and #as not a $art' to the arbitration a&ree"ent. 4his o$ens the $ossibilit', disc%ssed in one

o$inion, that the 1-*2 a$$lication #o%ld be "ade #itho%t the kno#led&e of the other $art' to the

dis$%te. e note that the $%blished o$inions lar&el' did not involve %se of a letter ro&ator' or otherdoc%"ent fro" a local co%rt.

ltho%&h a s"all n%"ber of re%ests for assistance #ere "ade before the initiation of arbitral $roceedin&s, the "aorit' of re%ests #ere "ade $ost6initiation. n "an' cases, related $roceedin&s

before arbitral trib%nals and co%rts #ere takin& $lace in "%lti$le %risdictions at the ti"e of the 1-*2

a$$lication. n so"e cases the record s%&&ests that the $art' seekin& 1-*2 discover' intended to %se the

infor"ation so%&ht in additional actions %nrelated to the arbitral $roceedin&.*1 4he "aterials #e revie#ed

#ere silent on #hether the infor"ation so%&ht and obtained #as later %sed in connection #ith liti&ation

before (.). co%rts.

'AB() 1. 'arget, 'i"ing, and Focus of * 1+2 A--lications

$$lications

F20122015G

J*otal& E1

<ost6 Intel $%blished

o$inions

J*otal& ..

4ar&et <art' 5

4hird <art' 2- 1-

4i"in& in relation to

forei&n arbitration

<re6initiation 5

<ost6initiation 2 1

).D.N.Y. 4hese #ere obtained b' "an%all' $hotoco$'in& the relevant dockets in the co%rtho%se Fsave for

one, #hich the co%rtho%se re$orted as lost/G. e atte"$ted to obtain the re"ainin& si! %sin&

:loo"ber&8s co%rier service. ;o%r #ere %nder seal, and t#o had %$dated docket n%"bers that #ere not

reflected online. e are &ratef%l to :loo"ber& for its assistance in obtainin& these doc%"ents and

ascertainin& the stat%s of those that #ere %nobtainable. e incl%ded all a$$lications that referred to

$roceedin&s before $rivate non6do"estic arbitrations, even if the' also referred to $roceedin&s before

forei&n co%rts or other forei&n or international $%blicl'6s$onsored trib%nals.

79 @ecall that the te!t of 1-*2 itself envisa&es re%ests e"anatin& fro" or endorsed b' the forei&n

trib%nal see 2* ( ) + 1-*2 F1G F4he order "a' be "ade $%rs%ant to a letter ro&ator' iss%ed or



@elated to assets 1- 2

4here #as one strikin& difference bet#een the a$$lications that led to $%blished o$inions andthose %ncovered b' o%r docket research. 4he ideal6t'$ic %se, in #hich one $art' to a $endin& or

reasonabl' conte"$lated arbitration seeks infor"ation related to the "erits of a clai" or defense, *2 onl'

fit a "inorit' of the a$$lications #e fo%nd in recent district co%rt dockets. Of the 20 a$$lications #e

fo%nd via docket search Fi.e., a$$lications in the $ast 3 'ears that had not led to $%blished o$inionsG, 15

so%&ht discover' related to assets for attach"ent or enforce"ent $%r$oses.*3 >an' of these occ%rred

either after the arbitral a#ard #as iss%ed, or after a co%rt order in a $roceedin& related to the arbitration

t'$icall' one seekin& attach"ent.* Ho#ever, in at least cases,*5 asset discover' #as so%&ht before an'

"erits $roceedin& #as co""enced$ossibl' re$resentin&, as one %d&e s%&&ested, an atte"$t to assess

#hether it #as financiall' #orth#hile to initiate arbitration.* Onl' 2 of the a$$lications seekin& assetdiscover' res%lted in $%blished o$inionsboth #ithin the $ast 'ear#hich "eans that #hat a$$ears to

82 ee5 e"g", Daniel ?. @othstein, A #roposal to Clari!y %"" La4 on 3udicial Assistance in *aking

)'idence !or International Arbitration, 1 >. @ EM. N4Q= @:. 1, 5 F200*G Fdisc%ssin& the $roced%ral

costs of evidence6takin& vers%s the $artiesQ ri&ht to $resent their case/G7 Hans )"it, Recent

De'elopments in International Litigation, 35 ). 4EP. =. @ EM. 215, 232 F1G Fdisc%ssin& ho# evidence"i&ht alter the assess"ent of the "erits, $ers%adin& a $art' or forei&n official to dro$ or $%rs%e the

forei&n arbitration.G.

83 ee $$endi!. n one of these, Order on >otion for >iscellaneo%s @elief, In re Harbo%r Mictoria nv.

Holdin&s, No. 1156"c60012-6?N F).D.N.Y. ?%ne 2, 2015G, E+; No. 23, there #ere both on&oin&

do"estic confir"ation $roceedin&s and forei&n enforce"ent $roceedin&s at the ti"e the 1-*2

a$$lication #as "ade. 4he %d&e $residin& over the do"estic confir"ation $roceedin& had denied the

so%&ht6after asset discover' d%e to %risdictional iss%es Fthe discover' #as $redicated on a cor$orate alter

e&o theor' relatin& to a Ne# York real estate co"$an'G. n the 1-*2 case, the %d&e noted that it

a$$eared the a$$licant #as atte"$tin& to evade the denial of its discover' re%est in the (.).

confir"ation $roceedin&, and that, if &ranted, <etitioner #o%ld in fact %se the discover' in the on&oin&

(.). $roceedin&./ Id" at -. Ho#ever, the %d&e ass%"ed #itho%t decidin& that the a$$licant #as seekin&

discover' in connection #ith enforce"ent $roceedin&s in ndia and %lti"atel' denied the re%est on the



be an i"$ortant strate&ic %se of 1-*2 in connection #ith $rivate arbitration "a' have &one %nnoticed b'

"an' observers.

'AB() 2. 'i"ing of Asset&$elated * 1+2 A--lications

No forei&n arbitration initiated

F<re6;ilin& nteri" @eliefG

;orei&n arbitration on&oin& 2

;orei&n arbitration initiated b%t

stat%s %nkno#n

2

;orei&n arbitration concl%ded

4hree feat%res of the a$$lications seekin& asset discover' stand o%t F1G altho%&h the $arties hada&reed to resolve their dis$%te thro%&h arbitration the 1-*2 a$$lication #as ostensibl' so%&ht in

assistance of enforce"ent6related %dicial $roceedin&s7 F2G the' bear the "arkin&s of a hi&h de&ree of

ro%tini9ation insofar as le&al ar&%"ents $resented b' the re%estor and the rationale stated b' the co%rt7*-

F3G in a si&nificant n%"ber of cases the re%est #as not o$$osed or the o$$osin& $art' did not a$$ear7**

FG the handf%l of a$$lications "ade $rior to obtainin& an arbitration a#ard For even $rior to initiatin&arbitrationG #ere handled, b' both the a$$licants and the co%rts, in "%ch the sa"e #a' as a$$lications

"ade after an a#ard, #itho%t takin& into acco%nt the fact that $re6a#ard asset discover' #o%ld not be

available %nder either (.). la# or the la# of the seat.*

4he a$$lication in In re Lauritzen ill%strates these feat%res.0 n Lauritzen, the $arties8 a&ree"ent

called for all dis$%tes arisin& o%t of the contract to be arbitrated in =ondon. ;ollo#in& car&o da"a&e

s%stained #hile the vessel Ocean <refect/ #as en ro%te fro" +hina to Mene9%ela, a $a'"ent dis$%te

arose bet#een the $arties.1 <rior to co""encin& arbitration, the clai"ant initiated attach"ent

87 4he $arties8 s%b"issions take a for"%laic a$$roach to the re%est, %sin& %ncorroborated and

concl%sor' lan&%a&e that #as t'$ical of re%ests for $rovisional relief $re6niadac+ and its $ro&en'. ee

)niadach v. ;a"il' ;in. +or$. of :a' Mie#, 35 (.). 33- F1G.

88 4he avera&e n%"ber of docket entries Fi.e., s%b"issions and ordersG in a$$lications seekin& asset

discover' is - $er docket7 for a$$lications seekin& discover' related to the "erits it is 35 e %se this as a



$roceedin&s in <ana"a to sec%re $art of their clai", alle&in& the defendant o#ned b%nkers aboard a

different vessel docked in a <ana"anian $ort.2 4he defendant dis$%ted that it o#ned the b%nkers in

%estion, and the clai"ant filed a 1-*2 a$$lication. 4he tar&ets of the a$$lication #ere nine Ne# York

banks that "a' have acted as inter"ediaries for $a'"ents related to the shi$ c%rrentl' docked in <ana"a.

4he "e"orand%" of la# s%$$ortin& the clai"ant8s a$$lication referred in $assin& to the =ondonarbitration ho#ever, the $a$ers easil' co%ld be read to &ive the i"$ression that this #as a <ana"a6centric

dis$%te. ndeed, onl' a c%rsor' disc%ssion #as offered as to #h' the <ana"anian co%rt %alified as a

forei&n trib%nal/ for $%r$oses of 1-*2

n Intel , the )%$re"e +o%rt confir"ed a lo# threshold for satisf'in& the forei&n or

international trib%nal/ re%ire"ent b' concl%din& that the Directorate Beneral Fi.e., a

&overn"ental investi&ative bod' and not a co%rtG is a trib%nal/ for the $%r$oses of satisf'in& there%ire"ents of 1-*2. 4he +o%rt also stated that WtWhe ter" Utrib%nal8 . . . incl%des investi&atin&

"a&istrates, ad"inistrative and arbitral trib%nals, and %asi6%dicial a&encies, as #ell as

conventional civil, co""ercial, cri"inal, and ad"inistrative co%rts./ n li&ht of the e!$ansive

definition of the ter" trib%nal,/ the <ana"anian +o%rt $roceedin& clearl' constit%tes a

$roceedin& in a forei&n or international trib%nal./3

Des$ite the fact that the $arties8 a&ree"ent called for arbitration in =ondon, &overned b' En&lish

la#, the "e"orand%" of la# did not disc%ss #hether the attach"ent $roceedin& or the discover' #o%ld be $er"issible in the e'es of either the le !oriAle causaeFG or the trib%nal.5 4he $etitioner si"$l' "ade a

concl%sor' assertion that none of the $olic' considerations identified in Intel5 incl%din& the $olic' a&ainst

circ%"ventin& forei&n $roof6&atherin& restrictions, #ei&hed a&ainst &rantin& relief.

Brantin& <etitionerQs re%est for relief is consistent #ith the &%idance $rovided b' the

Intel co%rt since the :anks #ill not be $arties to or $artici$ants in the Non6(.). $roceedin&. 4he

nat%re of the forei&n $roceedin& does not i"$licate an' factor or $olic' that #o%ld #ei&h a&ainst

&rantin& the <etitionerQs re%est. Nor #o%ld &rantin& the assistance re%ested b' the <etitioner

offend an' forei&n %risdiction or constit%te a circ%"vention of forei&n $roof6&atherin& r%les.;inall', the re%ests are neither %nd%l' intr%sive nor b%rdenso"e.



4he other $art' to the arbitration did not a$$ear in the action.- 4he docket lists no s%b"ission

that #o%ld corroborate the ke' %nderl'in& facts in the a$$lication, s%ch as the nat%re of the $arties8

a&ree"ent or #hat the $art' $lans to do s%bse%ent to the concl%sion of the attach"ent dis$%te.*

No#here in the docket "aterials did #e locate a s%b"ission that identified the re%estor8s rationale for

tar&etin& the nine banks in %estion. ltho%&h the order is #itho%t $re%dice to an' obectionsres$ondents "a' have/ to s%bse%ent discover' re%ests, there is no $roced%ral histor' $ast the iss%ance

of the order . One "onth later, =a%rit9en "ade another a$$lication that #as identical in all si&nificant

res$ects save for the fact that the attach"ent $roceedin& this ti"e #as in Bhana, #here another shi$ #ith

b%nkers alle&edl' belon&in& to the a#ard debtor had docked.100

Lauritzen %nfolded no differentl' fro" another case #ith a #holl' dissi"ilar $roced%ral

backdro$. n Bulk Atlantic, the 1-*2 a$$licant #as another $art' to a shi$$in& a&ree"ent &overned b'

En&lish la# #ith dis$%tes to be arbitrated in =ondon.101 Yet the $roced%ral si"ilarities end there.@ather than e"er&in& in the "idst of a dis$%ted attach"ent $roceedin& $rior to an alle&edl'

conte"$lated arbitration, this a$$lication occ%rred after the arbitrator iss%ed a final a#ard iss%ed in favor

of the a$$licant.102 4he a$$lication stated that the $art' $lanned to seek reco&nition andAor to obtain

97 4he $otential for "isre$resentationor, at the least, the inco"$lete state"ent of relevant facts

o$ened %$ b' the other $art'8s non6$artici$ation sho%ld be taken serio%sl'. n In re Han#ha 9del, nc.,

- ;.)%$$.2d 1-*, 1*0 FD. >ass. Oct. 2, 2013G, the $art' stated that the arbitration #as takin& $lace in<aris, #hen in fact it #as in the (nited )tates Fb%t bein& cond%cted %nder the r%les of the ++, #hich is

head%artered in <arisG. 4his onl' e"er&ed after obtainin& an order, Endorsed Order Brantin& >otion for

Order llo#in& Discover', Han#ha 9del, nc. v. +rane L +o. nc., No. 3136"c6300 FD. >ass. Oct.

2, 2013G, E+; No. *, in the case that #as s%bse%entl' challen&ed b' the $etitioner8s o$$onent in the

arbitration, )abic nnovative <lastics () ==+8s >e"orand%" of =a# in )%$$ort of ts >otion to X%ash

the )%b$oena to +rane L +o. and to Macate the +o%rt8s Order of >a' *, 2013, Han#ha 9del, nc. v.

+rane L +o. nc., No. 3136"c6300 FD. >ass. Oct. 2, 2013G, E+; No. 2.

98 4here is a declaration %nder $enalt' of $er%r' fro" the na"ed attorne' on the case, b%t it declares

the veracit' of onl' five facts F1G co%nsel stat%s and bar ad"ission7 F2G that the attorne' #as contacted b'

=a%rit9en8s <ana"anian co%nsel7 F3G that =a%rit9en8s attach"ent co"$laint is tr%e and e!act as



sec%rit' thro%&h attach"ent actions.103 Ho#ever, these $roceedin&s had not 'et been initiated. (nder the

circ%"stances, the a$$licant #as seekin& infor"ation related to #ire transfers fro" nine Ne# York banks,

#ith the &oal of locatin& defendant8s assets to deter"ine #here to initiate s%ch $roceedin&s.10

4h%s, the Lauritzen a$$lication #as in "an' res$ects the inverse of the Bulk Atlantic a$$lication.

hereas the for"er ca"e after an attach"ent order, b%t before the arbitration $roceedin&s #ere initiated,the latter ca"e after the arbitral a#ard, b%t before attach"ent or enforce"ent $roceedin&s.

Nonetheless, the sit%ations #ere $resented as if the' #ere identical as far as 1-*2 is concerned.

e %estion #hether this e%ivalence o%&ht to be ass%"ed b' the co%rts. n addition, in each case, the

$etitioner fra"ed the $roced%ral backdro$ as if the onl' relevant $roceedin& #ere the attach"ent

$roceedin&, even tho%&h in one case it had alread' res%lted in an attach"ent order, and in the other the

#hole $roceedin& #as h'$othetical. ndeed, the le&al ar&%"ent e!cer$ted above105 #as literall' lifted,

verbati", #ith the onl' "odification bein& re$lace"ent of <ana"anian/ #ith the #ord =ondon./10 Yetthis a$$lication #as &ranted in a nearl' identical order that #as the sa"e in all s%bstantive res$ects.10-

:oth of these dockets contain onl' entries. t is $ossible that a $art' obected to the ordered

discover' s%bse%ent to this initial dis$osition. Ho#ever, as it has been over 2 'ears since the'

concl%ded, it "a' be concl%ded that no obection occ%rred.

. A--licability of 2 U.S.!. * 1+2 to Private Proceedings

hether (.). federal co%rts can order discover' to assist in forei&n $rivate arbitrations t%rns on

#hether those $roceedin&s are covered b' 1-*2. (nfort%natel', the dece$tivel' si"$le $hrase forei&n

or international trib%nal/ is hi&hl' a"bi&%o%s as a$$lied to a $rivate arbitral trib%nal.

4he "ost diffic%lt iss%e is $osed b' the ter" trib%nal./ On the one hand, the ordinar' "eanin& of the ter" enco"$asses a $rivate arbitral trib%nal. 4his vie# is s%$$orted b' the #ritin&s of Hans )"it,

#ho led the +ol%"bia <roect on nternational <roced%re that ins$ired the 1 a"end"ents to 1-*2

and is #idel' $raised as the architect of the stat%te.10* ritin& in 15, after the stat%te8s a"end"ent, )"it

said, Jthe ter" Utrib%nal8 e"braces all bodies e!ercisin& ad%dicatin& $o#ers, and incl%des investi&atin&

"a&istrates, ad"inistrative and arbitral tribunals, and %asi6%dicial a&encies, as #ell as conventional

103 Id" at S 1011.



civil, co""ercial, cri"inal, and ad"inistrative co%rts./10 @eferrin& to another $rod%ct of the 1

a"end"ents concernin& assistance #ith letters ro&ator', )"it #rote, Jthe ter" trib%nal #as chosen

deliberatel' as bein& both ne%tral and enco"$assin&/110 and reiterated that it #as intended to incl%de

arbitral trib%nals.111 )"it8s definition of the ter" trib%nal/ #as %oted #ith a$$roval b' ?%stice Binsb%r&

in Intel in s%$$ort of the ar&%"ent that 1-*2 covers %asi6%dicial $roceedin&s. )o"e co%rts have readthis $assa&e as a stron& s%&&estion that 1-*2 covers $rivate arbitration,112 b%t ?%stice Binsb%r&8s o$inion

does not e!$licitl' endorse this as$ect of )"it8s state"ent.113 n fact, o%r vie# is that the best readin& of

?%stice Binsb%r&8s o$inion is that it re"ains a&nostic on the %estion of #hether arbitral trib%nals are

incl%ded7 "oreover, in o%r vie# one "%st $roceed ca%tio%sl' before $res%"in& that the factors identified

in that o$inion #ith res$ect to $%blicl'6s$onsored decisional trib%nals can be trans$lanted and a$$lied in

108 ?%stice Binsb%r&, #ho a%thored the "aorit' o$inion in Intel , earlier in her career #as ssociate

Director of the $roect, re$lacin& rth%r @. >iller.

109 Hans )"it, International Litigation %nder t+e %nited tates Code, 5 +O=(>. =. @ EM. 1015, 102

n.-1 F15G Fe"$hasis addedG.

110 Id" at 1021 n.3.

111 Id" at 1021.

112 +o%rts $ers%aded b' this vie# tend to e"$hasi9e Intel 8s reliance on )"it8s $ost6enact"ent #ritin&.

Babcock , supra note 2, at 23*3 FJn disc%ssin& the "eanin& of the ter" Utrib%nal8. . . the +o%rt in

Intel favorabl' %oted an article b' <rofessor )"it . . . ltho%&h this %otation in Intel is as a for"al

"atter dicta, its considered incl%sion offers "eanin&f%l insi&ht re&ardin& the )%$re"e +o%rtQs vie# of

arbitral bodies in the conte!t of 1-*2FaG./G7 Roz , supra note 2, at 1225 Fnotin& Intel %oted a$$rovin&l'lan&%a&e that incl%ded Uarbitral trib%nals8 #ithin the ter"Qs "eanin& in 1-*2FaG/ and findin& ar&%"ents



the $rivate arbitral conte!t.11 +ertainl', the +o%rt did not consider the %estion in an e!$licit and

s%stained #a'.

ndeed, not#ithstandin& )"it8s $ost6enact"ent co""ents, the le&islative histor' s%&&ests that the

1 a"end"ents did not e"brace the vie# that the ter" forei&n or international trib%nal/ #o%ld

enco"$ass a $rivate arbitral trib%nal. @ather, the $%r$ose of this lan&%a&e #as to e!tend 1-*2 to state6s$onsored non6%dicial trib%nals and inter&overn"ental trib%nals created b' treaties to #hich the (nited

)tates #as not a $art'. Neither the 1006$a&e re$ort $re$ared for +on&ress b' the +ol%"bia <roect, 115 nor

the oft6cited )enate re$ort constit%tin& the b%lk of the le&islative histor',11 "entions arbitration or arbitral

trib%nals. 4he relevant $ortions of those re$orts foc%s on the need for assistance to ad"inistrative

trib%nals, %asi6%dicial a&encies, investi&atin& "a&istrates, and inter&overn"ental trib%nals.11- >oreover,

co%rts, arbitral trib%nals, and co""entators at the ti"e t'$icall' referred to those involved in arbitration

as $arties/711* b' contrast, the le&islative histor' and the +ol%"bia @e$ort both referred al"ost

114 s the district co%rt in $inser'e, supra note *1, observed

Jhile the (nited )tates )%$re"e +o%rt in Intel cited the co""entator )"it #ith a$$roval, it

deleted $art of )"it8s definition of Utrib%nal8, the $art that incl%ded Uall bodies e!ercisin&

ad%dicator' $o#ers8. 4his deletion co%ld be inter$reted to s%$$ort a findin& that $rivate

arbitration or&ani9ations are not Uforei&n trib%nals.8 4he co%rt in Intel does not directl' addressthe iss%e . . . and the %ote fro" )"it does not solve this inter$retational dile""a.

Id" at I2. >oreover, $rior to the +o%rt8s decision in Intel , both the )econd and the ;ifth +irc%its held that

1-*2 did not enco"$ass $rivate forei&n or international arbitration $roceedin&s. ee Biedermann, supra

note 2, at **3 F#e concl%de that the ter" Uforei&n and international trib%nals8 in 1-*2 #as not intended

to a%thori9e resort to (nited )tates federal co%rts to assist discover' in $rivate international

arbitrations/G7 NBC , supra note 2, at 11 F+on&ress did not intend for that stat%te to a$$l' to an arbitral

bod' established b' $rivate $arties/G. 4he +o%rt in Intel did not cite to those decisions and did not

e!$licitl' or even i"$licitl' abro&ate the", for the %estion of $rivate arbitral $roceedin&s #as not

$resented.

115 )"it L >iller supra note 1



e!cl%sivel' to liti&ants,/ evincin& a foc%s on civil liti&ation. None of the $%blications on international

%dicial assistance referenced in the biblio&ra$h' to the +ol%"bia @e$ort "entioned arbitration.11 ;inall',

the broader conte!t in #hich the a"end"ents #ere enacted s%&&ests that it is %nlikel' that +on&ress

intended to e!tend discover' to international arbitration as a "eans of facilitatin& $rivate arbitration. t

the ti"e of the a"end"ents to 1-*2, the (nited )tates had recentl' declined to oin the 15* Ne# York +onvention/ Fon @eco&nition and Enforce"ent of ;orei&n rbitral #ardsG beca%se of f%nda"ental

"is&ivin&s abo%t international co""ercial arbitration.120 n an' event, at that ti"e co"$elled testi"on'

and doc%"ent $rod%ction #ere not $ro"inent feat%res of arbitration Faltho%&h international arbitrators did

have discretion to order discover'G.121 One "e"orabletho%&h $ossibl' overstatedfor"%lation held

4he f%nda"ental differences bet#een the fact6findin& $rocess of a %dicial trib%nal and those of a $anel

of arbitrators de"onstrate the need of $retrial discover' in the one and its s%$erfl%it' and %tter

inco"$atibilit' in the other./122 nother so%rce of a"bi&%it' in 1-*2 is the $hrase forei&n or international./ threshold

%estion is #hether it is a co"$osite $hrase or #hether the ter"s forei&n/ and international/ "%st be

&iven se$arate "eanin&s.123 Other iss%es incl%de does the forei&n or international character of a trib%nal

ste" fro" the $lace of the arbitrationC 4he nationalit' of the arbitratorsC 4he facts of the dis$%teC 4he

&overnin& la#C 4he $artiesC nd #henif evercan a trib%nal be international/ b%t not forei&nC

+o%rts are so"eti"es $ressed to inter$ret these ter"s e!$ansivel'. ;or instance, in 1* )"it s%&&ested a

trib%nal sho%ld be dee"ed international #hen an' of the $arties before it, or an' of the arbitrators, is not

a citi9en or resident of the (nited )tates,/ and sho%ld be dee"ed forei&n #hen it is held an'#here

119 )"it L >iller, supra note 1 at 10203.

120 David @othstein, A #roposal to Clari!y %"" La4 on 3udicial Assistance in *aking )'idence !or

International Arbitration, 1 >. @ EM. N4Q= @:. 1, 2, - F200*G Far&%in& that oinin& the Ne# York

+onvention #o%ld have been the "ost basic assistance/ it co%ld $rovide to $rivate forei&n arbitration,

s%ch that it #o%ld be inconsistent to be foc%sed on evidentiar' assistanceG.

121 n 153 the nternational =a# +o""ission atte"$ted to codif' r%les of arbitral $roced%re

b d i i i l d i i l i h i i d i f



o%tside the (nited )tates or is created %nder the la# of a forei&n co%ntr'./12 Yet as the )econd +irc%it

noted, #hen co"bined #ith his definition that trib%nal/ refers to all bodies #ith ad%dicator'

f%nctions,/125 this #o%ld i"$la%sibl' broaden the sco$e of dis$%tes covered b' 1-*2.12 >oreover,

re&ardless of the $recise criteria ado$ted, the )econd +irc%it #as concerned that e!tendin& 1-*2 to

incl%de $rivate arbitral trib%nals #o%ld create an entirel' ne# cate&or' of dis$%tes concernin& . . . thecharacteri9ation of arbitral $anels as do"estic, forei&n, or international./12-

n li&ht of the fore&oin&, it is hardl' s%r$risin& that since the decision in Intel there has been no

%dicial consens%s on #hether 1-*2 covers $rivate arbitration. 4he ostensibl' diver&ent %ris$r%dence

can be distilled into three strands. ;irst, so"e cases take the vie# that Intel e!$ands the definition of

forei&n or international trib%nal/ so that findin& 1-*2 covers $rivate arbitration is either co"$elled or

stron&l' s%&&ested.12* second strand relies heavil' on f%nctional factors that are derived fro" ?%stice

Binsb%r&8s anal'sis of #hether the stat%te a$$lied to a %asi6%dicial $%blic trib%nal. 4hese cases co"eo%t both #a's on the %estion of #hether 1-*2 reaches $rivate arbitration, b%t the co""on thread is

that the' see Intel as establishin& criteria b' #hich all $roceedin&s #ill be eval%ated.12 ;inall', a third

strand reects reliance on )"it8s $ost6enact"ent definition of trib%nal,130 and the cases in this &ro%$

conse%entl' contin%e to a$$l' the $re6 Intel anal'sis develo$ed b' the )econd and ;ifth +irc%its to

e!cl%de $rivate arbitrations fro" the sco$e of 1-*2, even #hen the re%est is "ade b' the arbitrators.131

On the threshold iss%e of a$$licabilit' of the stat%te to $rivate arbitral $roceedin&s, o%r vie# is

"ost closel' ali&ned #ith the third6strand of cases. e do not believe that 1-*2 $lainl' incl%des

re%ests in aid of $rivate arbitration or that )"it8s vie# on this iss%e #as endorsed b' ?%stice Binsb%r& in

124

Hans )"it, American Assistance to Litigation in $oreign and International *ribunals, 25 )Y@+()E ?.

N4Q= =. L +O>. 1, -* F1*G.

125

Id"

126

NBC , supra note 2, at 11 n. FJf the $arties in a do"estic arbitration si"$l' a$$ointed one forei&narbitrator to an other#ise entirel' do"estic $anel dealin& #ith a $%rel' do"estic dis$%te, that

a$$oint"ent #o%ld "ake 1-*2 available./G.



Intel . Ho#ever, as set o%t belo#, #e take a different vie# of the $olic' considerations that o%&ht to be

%sed to resolve this a"bi&%it'.132

e also believe that the inter$retive iss%es concernin& the "eanin& of forei&n or international/

can be resolved relativel' easil' %sin& conventional a$$roaches to stat%tor' inter$retation.

;or instance, #e #o%ld a$$l' the "a!i" that ever' #ord of a stat%te "%st be &iven "eanin& andhold that forei&n trib%nal/ "eans so"ethin& se$arate fro" international trib%nal./ 4his #o%ld be

consistent #ith the le&islative histor' of 1-*2 #hich s%&&ests that the drafters %sed different ter"s to

refer to state6s$onsored trib%nals and inter&overn"ental trib%nals established b' treat'.

t is also clearl' desirable to read 1-*2 in a #a' that avoids conflict #ith other federal la#s

indeed, the Intel decision itself ca%tioned that re%ests for discover' sho%ld not be a#arded if at odds

#ith (.). la#.133 broad readin& of the $hrase forei&n or international trib%nal/ co%ld lead to conflicts

#ith - of the ;. @ecall that - onl' $rovides for assistance to trib%nals #hose arbitrators, or a"aorit' of the", are sittin& in a district of the (.). federal co%rts. 4he obvio%s #a' to avoid conflict is to

hold that 1-*2 a$$lies onl' to $rivate trib%nals that either sit o%tside the (nited )tates or for so"e other

reason cannot rel' on - of the ;. 13 4his readin& also has the virt%e of bein& easil' ad"inistered,

129

Winning , supra note 2, at I*10 Fcond%ctin& a f%nctional anal'sis and concl%din& a $rivate arbitration

#as a forei&n trib%nal/ beca%se the En&lish co%rts co%ld revie# the a#ardG7 Operadora, supra note 2, at

I11 F4he +o%rt finds that the so%rce of the ++ <anelQs a%thorit' and its $%r$ose are f%nctional attrib%testhat "ilitate a&ainst classif'in& it as a forei&n or international $roceedin& %nder 1-*2./G7 O?)+ (krnafta

v. +ar$atsk' <etrol., 200 = 2*--15, at I FD. +onn. %&. 2-, 200G Ffindin& that the )tockhol"

arbitration trib%nal is a first6instance decision"aker/ #hose a#ards are s%bect to revie# s%ch that it

%alifies %nder a f%nctional testG.

130

>%#C , supra note 113, at I* F4his co%rt finds that those cases relied too heavil' on the )%$re"e

+o%rtQs incl%sion of the $hrase Uarbitral $anel8 in a $arenthetical %otation and a definition in one treatise#hich #o%ld "ake s#ee$in& chan&es to the %ris$r%dence s%rro%ndin& 1-*2 not $resented s%arel' tothe )%$re"e +o%rt in its case./G7 La Comision, supra note 2.

131



addressin& the )econd +irc%it8s fears abo%t dis$%tes aro%nd the characteri9ation of trib%nals.135 n

addition, the broad readin& of 1-*2 co%ld &enerate conflicts #ith $rovisions of the ;ederal @%les of

+ivil <roced%re that set o%t ho# one federal co%rt sho%ld assist in co"$ellin& discover' in aid of

$roceedin&s in another federal co%rt or that li"it the availabilit' of discover' in vario%s res$ects. 4his

$otential for conflict is $artic%larl' clear #hen it co"es to asset discover'. s #e have seen, assetdiscover' &enerall' is not available $re6%d&"ent in federal co%rt, and it is not available in do"estic

co""ercial arbitrations. Yet 1-*2 is bein& %sed in a si&nificant n%"ber of cases for %st this $%r$ose.

/. $efra"ing t0e Discussion to Include t0er !onsiderations of Public Policy

4he $recedin& disc%ssion sho%ld "ake clear that conventional le&al anal'sis of the te!t and

le&islative histor' of 1-*2 does not concl%sivel' ans#er the %estion of #hether it covers discover' inaid of $roceedin&s before $rivate forei&n arbitral trib%nals. >oreover, altho%&h so"e lo#er co%rts in the

(nited )tates have read ?%stice Binsb%r&8s decision in Intel as a si&nal that the stat%te does e"brace

$rivate arbitral trib%nals, the %estion #as not $resented in that case and the +o%rt did not &ive the

%estion the f%ll consideration that it deserves. (nder the circ%"stances, it see"s a$$ro$riate to refer to

$olic' considerations to ans#er each of these %estions. s in other areas of civil $roced%re, it is

133

Biedermann, supra note 2, at **3 Fnotin& the $ossibilit' of conflict bet#een 1-*2 and the ; if the

for"er #as inter$reted to cover $rivate arbitral trib%nalsG. ee also Intel , supra note , at 2-0 FJ co%rtsho%ld not $er"it discover' #here both of the follo#in& are tr%e F1G $rivate $erson seekin& discover'

#o%ld not be entitled to that discover' %nder forei&n la#, and F2G the discover' #o%ld not be available

%nder do"estic la# in analo&o%s circ%"stances. 4he ;ederal @%les of +ivil <roced%re, for e!a"$le, "ake

onl' li"ited $rovisions for nonliti&ants to obtain certain discover'. ee ;ed. @%le +iv. <roc. 2-./G. )o"e

co%rts considerin& 1-*2 a$$lications $ost6 Intel have reco&ni9ed that a$$lications for discover'

assistance %nder 1-*2 are s%bect to the ;ederal @%les of +ivil <roced%re. ee5 e"g", In re +lerici, *1

;.3d 132, 133 F11th +ir. 200-G FOnce discover' is a%thori9ed %nder 1-*2, the federal discover'

r%les, ;ed. @. +iv. <. 263, contain the relevant $ractices and $roced%res for the takin& of testi"on' andthe $rod%ction of doc%"ents./G7 +hevron +or$. v. +a"$, 2010 = 31*3, at I F.D.N.+. %&. 30,2010G Fdeter"inin& that the co%rt "%st a$$l' the ;ederal @%les of +ivil <roced%re/ in deter"inin& #hat

discover' is to be taken %nder 1-*2G. ccordin& to this vie#, the $art' "akin& the 1-*2 re%est "%st



i"$ortant to consider #hether $er"ittin& resort to the (.). co%rts is consistent #ith not onl' the $rivate

interests of the $arties b%t also broader $%blic interests. )o far, disc%ssion of this iss%e has revolved

aro%nd t#o a$$roaches, #hich #e have called essentialist and contractarian.

a. )ssentialist and !ontractarian A--roac0es and t0eir (i"itations

n one of the leadin& o$inions on 1-*2, the )econd +irc%it set o%t an a$$roach #e consider to

be ill%strative of the essentialist/ a$$roach to the $olic' %estion of #hether 1-*2 sho%ld a$$l' to

$rivate arbitration. ritin& for the a$$eals $anel, ?%d&e +abranes stated that $er"ittin& discover'

$%rs%ant to 1-*2 in the arbitration conte!t #o%ld %nder"ine so"e of the "ain advanta&es of arbitrationover liti&ation. He ar&%ed that arbitration8s $o$%larit' can be traced to the fact that it is chea$er, faster and

si"$ler than liti&ation, and as a res%lt nor"all' "ini"i9es hostilit' and is less disr%$tive of on&oin& andf%t%re b%siness dealin&s a"on& the $arties./13 <er"ittin& 1-*2 discover' #o%ld %nder"ine these

advanta&es and conflict #ith the federal $olic' favorin& arbitration. 4his can be inter$reted as an

ar&%"ent that both the $rivate interests of the $arties to the arbitration and the $%blic interest in

$ro"otin& a $artic%lar for" of arbitration #ei&h a&ainst $er"ittin& %dicial assistance #ith discover'. t

the ver' least this a$$roach s%$$orts a $res%"$tion a&ainst the $ractice.

4he essentialist a$$roach to arbitration has been e"braced in recent decisions of the )%$re"e

+o%rt. ;or instance, in Hall treet Associates5 LLC '" 7attel5 Inc, the +o%rt ref%sed to enforce an

arbitration a&ree"ent that #o%ld e!$and the sco$e of %dicial revie# of an arbitration a#ard be'ond theli"ited sco$e s$ecified in the ; reasonin& that li"ited $ost6arbitration revie# #as needed to "aintain

arbitration8s essential virt%e of resolvin& dis$%tes strai&hta#a'./13- )i"ilarl', the co%rt has ref%sed to

allo# either arbitrators or state la# to $rovide for class actions in arbitration in cases #here the arbitration

a&ree"ent is silent on the &ro%nd that this #o%ld chan&e the nat%re of arbitration as envisa&ed b' the

;.13*

4he f%nda"ental obection to the essentialist a$$roach is that arbitration can "ean different thin&s to

different $eo$le and at different ti"es. <rivate $arties "a' $refer to deviate fro" the classical "odel of

arbitration, and if the' e!$ress that $reference in a for"al a&ree"ent it is not obvio%s ho# their interests

are served b' havin& their #ishes th#arted.13 4he essentialist $ers$ective also leaves no roo" forconsiderin& #hether there is a $%blic interest in facilitatin& these kinds of deviations fro" the classical

"odel of arbitration.



4his brin&s %s to a leadin& alternative to the essentialist a$$roach, the contractarian a$$roach. 4his

a$$roach $laces &reat #ei&ht on the #idel' reco&ni9ed $olic' in favor of enforcin& $rivatel' ne&otiated

arbitration a&ree"ents. <rior to the recent set of )%$re"e +o%rt decisions favorin& the essentialist

a$$roach,10 "ost circ%its held that the $olic' of &ivin& effect to $rivate a&ree"ents sho%ld take

$recedence over even the $olic' of enco%ra&in& efficient and s$eed' dis$%te resol%tion.11 :ased on this $olic' consideration, the contractarian a$$roach dictates that the critical deter"inant of #hether to

$rovide discover' in aid of arbitration is the a&ree"ent bet#een the $arties 1-*2 discover' sho%ld be

$er"itted if b%t onl' if the arbitration a&ree"ent, $ro$erl' inter$reted, $rovides for it.12 4his a$$roach

$laces a &reat deal of #ei&ht on the inter$retation of the arbitration a&ree"ent. e leave it to others to

address the roles that co%rts as o$$osed to arbitrators o%&ht to $la' in this inter$retive $rocess and #hat

techni%es the' sho%ld %se.

nterestin&l', it is %nclear #hether the contractarian a$$roach s%$$orts the not6%nco""on c%rrent $ractice of $rovidin& %dicial assistance #ith discover' $rior to the initiation of arbitration $roceedin&s or

#itho%t the a$$roval of the trib%nal. 4he cases in #hich these kinds of re%ests have been &ranted contain

no indication that the arbitration a&ree"ent e!$licitl' $rovides for this sort of assistance. (nder the

contractarian a$$roach, #hen the arbitration a&ree"ent is silent assistance sho%ld onl' be $rovided if

$er"itted b' a$$licable instit%tional r%les or $roced%ral le&islation incor$orated b' reference into the

140

ee5 e"g", Hall treet , supra note 13-, 5*-** Fref%sin& to enforce an a&ree"ent to e!$and %dicial revie# beca%se of arbitrationQs essential virt%e of resolvin& dis$%tes strai&hta#a'/ and statin& that the contrar'

res%lt #o%ld brin& arbitration theor' to &rief in $ost arbitration $rocess/G Finternal citations and

%otations o"ittedG7 Concepcion, supra note 13*.

141

ee5 e"g", Ha' Bro%$, nc. v. E.:.). c%isition +or$., 30 ;.3d 0, 10 F3d +ir. 200G Fltho%&h

efficienc' is certainl' an obective of $arties #ho favor arbitration over liti&ation . . . efficienc' is not the $rinci$le &oal of the ;. @ather, the central $%r$ose of the ; is to &ive effect to $rivate

a&ree"ents./G7 =a<ine 4echnolo&' +or$. v. K'ocera +or$., 130 ;.3d ** Fth +ir. 1-G Fhen, as here,

the $arties a&ree contract%all' to s%bect an arbitration a#ard to e!$anded %dicial revie#, federal

arbitration $olic' de"ands that the co%rt cond%ct its revie# accordin& to the ter"s of the arbitration

d if b i l id d f l i l ffi i h h l f



a&ree"ent. Ho#ever, o%r sense is that those r%les and stat%tes t'$icall' onl' $rovide for assistance at the

re%est ofor at least #ith the in$%t ofthe arbitrators.13

4he contractarian a$$roach has been endorsed b' at least one co%rt as #ell as $ro"inent co""entators

s%ch as Hans )"it and the Ne# York +it' :ar ssociation. 1 Nonetheless, #e believe it has an i"$ortant

shortco"in& it &ives effect to the $rivate interest in enforcin& arbitration a&ree"ents #itho%t re&ard tothe i"$lications for $%blic interests.15 E!istin& (.). la# "akes it clear that there are sit%ations in #hich

$%blic interests tr%"$ $rivate interests in enforcin& a&ree"ents abo%t $roced%re. ;or instance, in Atlantic

7arine Construction Co" '" %"" Dist" Court !or Western Dist" o! *e", the +o%rt held that $%blic interests

"%st be considered in deter"inin& #hether to &ive effect to a for%"6selection cla%se.1

b. Discovery Assistance and a Public Interest A--roac0

)o ho# are broader $%blic interests affected b' enforce"ent of arbitration a&ree"ents that $rovide for

%diciall' assisted discover'C e believe that enforce"ent has $otential effects, both direct and indirect,

for at least fo%r distinct sets of interests that are not s$oken for b' the $arties to the arbitration a&ree"ent.

>oreover, #e do not re&ard these interests as s$ecial/ interests as that ter" often is %sed in the literat%re

of $%blic choice and else#here.1- @ather, #e vie# the" as a"on& the "ost basic considerations that "%st

be taken into acco%nt #henever a so%nd s'ste" of civil $roced%re is established, refor"ed, or

o$erationali9ed.

1" *+ird parties 4+o +a'e not assented to t+e arbitration agreement s $revio%sl'

143

;or instance, the "ost co""on set of &%idelines on the iss%e are the : @%les on the 4akin& of

Evidence in nternational rbitration, #hich conte"$late a $ost6initiation decision %nder s%$ervision of

the arbitrators. 4he' $rovide, 4he rbitral 4rib%nal shall cons%lt the <arties at the earliest a$$ro$riate

ti"e in the $roceedin&s and invite the" to cons%lt each other #ith a vie# to a&reein& on an efficient,

econo"ical and fair $rocess for the takin& of evidence./ : @ (=E), rt. 2F1G.

144

Id .

145



disc%ssed, the "aorit' of re%ests for assistance fro" (.). co%rts seek infor"ation fro" $ersons #ho are

not $arties to the arbitration a&ree"ent. (.). $olic' favors the enforce"ent of arbitration a&ree"ents,

even in the international conte!t. nd the $arties to an a&ree"ent have broad a%thorit' to contract over

the ter"s of their $roceedin&s. :%t the' do not have a%thorit' to #aive or di"inish the ri&hts of third

$arties #ho are not contract%all' bo%nd b' the a&ree"ent and #hose interests have not beenconsidered.1* 4herefore, altho%&h the $arties have a%thorit' to decide #hether the' #ill $artici$ate in

third6$art' discover', the' do not have a%thorit' to i"$ose the costs of that %dicial $rocess %$on a third

$art' #itho%t inde$endent revie#.

." Consumers o! %"" 3udicial er'ices Ne!t, there are the interests of non6$arties #ho "i&ht

%se, rel' on, or benefit fro" the #ork of the (.). co%rts. 4he' are affected to the e!tent that those co%rts

are b%rdened #ith res$ondin& to additional re%ests for assistance in dis$%tes at a ti"e of b%d&et scarcit'.@ather than red%cin& the b%rden of (.). co%rts, b' si$honin& dis$%tes to an alternative s'ste", arbitration

co"bined #ith the $ossibilit' of re%ests for assistance %nder 1-*2 "a' increase the b%rden. 4his

b%rden "a' "anifest not onl' as docket6clo&&in& that res%lts in increased dela's, b%t also as increased

costs to liti&ants in the for" of filin& fees or ta!es borne b' (.). ta!$a'ers.

?%diciall'6s%$ervised discover' in s%$$ort of arbitration does not &enerate the sa"e kinds of

benefits that flo# fro" other for"s of %diciall'6s%$ervised discover'. ltho%&h infor"ation e!chan&e

%nder the ;ederal @%les is not $%blic, "aterials obtained thro%&h discover' "%st be filed #ith the co%rt

#hen the' are %sed in the $roceedin& or the co%rt orders filin&./1 Of co%rse, a $art' "a' seek to $lace

"aterials %nder seal or to sec%re confidentialit' in so"e other for"7 b%t the &eneral %nderstandin& is that

infor"ation obtained thro%&h discover' #ill infor" the $arties8 s%b"issions to the co%rt, ed%cate the

co%rt abo%t the dis$%te, and $rovide the fact%al $redicate for the a$$lication of la# in the co%rt8s decision"akin& $rocess. 4his se%ential $rocess of infor"ation e!chan&e bet#een the $arties, infor"ation6

sharin& #ith the co%rt, and infor"ation6consideration b' the %d&e serves the $%blic8s interests in le&al

ada$tation and doctrinal %nifor"it'. rbitration erects barriers to the flo# of infor"ation the $arties #ish

to "aintain the secrec' of infor"ation, $roceedin&s are $rivate, and decisions "a' not be $%blicl'

available.150 =iti&ation ordinaril' serves as a $%blic &ood that re$lenishes and refines the base of la# and

infor"ation available to cons%"ers, citi9ens, and re&%lators, b%t liti&ation in s%$$ort of $rivate arbitrationserves none of these $%r$oses %nless the infor"ation is "ade available on ter"s that are co"$arable to

those in liti&ated s%its.151



e reco&ni9e, ho#ever, that the cons%"ers of (.). %dicial services "a' derive offsettin&

benefits fro" e!$anded access to 1-*2 in international arbitration. 4he "ere fact that a dis$%te is bein&

resolved b' a forei&n or international trib%nal does not "ean that cons%"ers of (.). %dicial services

Fbe'ond the i""ediate $arties to the dis$%teG have no interest in havin& those $rivate dis$%tes resolved

effectivel' and efficientl'. 4he $ros$ect of effective and efficient dis$%te resol%tiono%r shorthand for a"ode of dis$%te resol%tion that f%rthers the $rivate interests of the $artici$ants as #ell as $%blic interests

tends, a"on& other thin&s, to enco%ra&e "%t%all' beneficial dealin&s a"on& $arties.152 n an

increasin&l' interde$endent #orld, even if the $arties to the dis$%te are ostensibl' forei&n nationals, their

shareholders or creditors or e"$lo'ees or s%$$liers or c%sto"ers "i&ht be cons%"ers of (.). %dicial

services #ho #ill benefit, at least $ros$ectivel', fro" effective dis$%te resol%tion. ;or all these reasons,

there are "an' $roceedin&s before forei&n or international arbitral trib%nals in #hich %sers or

beneficiaries of the (.). co%rt s'ste" "i&ht have a stake. 4he $%blic interest tends to#ard $er"ittin&(.). co%rts to %se 1-*2 to enhance the effectiveness of those $roceedin&s.153

(sers of the (.). co%rts "i&ht also benefit indirectl' fro" enhancin& the effectiveness of forei&n

or international $roceedin&s. ;irst, those enhance"ents "i&ht disco%ra&e $eo$le fro" brin&in& dis$%tes

in #hich (.). stakeholders have no interest to (.). co%rts. )econd, $rovidin& assistance to forei&n or

international trib%nals "i&ht enco%ra&e the" to $rovide reci$rocal assistance to (.). co%rts. 15 r&%abl',

ind%cin& forei&n co%rts to res$ond in kind to the $rovision of discover' assistance b' (.). co%rts #as one

rationale behind the 1 a"end"ents to 1-*2.155 Ho#ever, the $rinci$le of reci$rocit' has li"ited

152 4he availabilit' of 1-*2 discover' "a' ind%ce sociall' desirable behavior on the $art of fir"s that

kno# the' "a' be co"$elled to $rod%ce doc%"ents and #itnesses before a forei&n arbitral trib%nal.

Ho#ever, to the e!tent the tar&ets of 1-*2 re%ests are third $arties, this e ante effect "a' be

di"inished.

153

Of co%rse, there #ill be i"$erfect overla$ bet#een the individ%als #ho benefit fro" the effective and

efficient resol%tion of co""ercial dis$%tes before forei&n or international arbitral trib%nalss%ch asshareholdersand those #ho bear the b%rden of increased co%rt costs d%e to 1-*2 a$$lications.

154

di i l i i f hi i l f h f f h bli f



relevance to $rivate arbitral trib%nals. Even if discover' in aid of $rivate arbitration co%ld "otivate

refor"s abroad.15 Yet this $ros$ect can c%t both #a's forei&n &overn"ents "a' seek to co%nteract or

disco%ra&e discover' ordered b' (.). co%rts.15- On balance, #ith res$ect to 1-*2, there are reasons to be

ske$tical abo%t the $ros$ects for s$%rrin& forei&n develo$"ents that #ill benefit (.). liti&ants.15*

E" Integrity o! %"" 9udicial proceedings 4he $%blic overall has an interest in "aintainin& the

inte&rit' of $roceedin&s before (.). co%rts. 4hese interests co%ld conceivabl' be %nder"ined if (.).

co%rts are asked to assist in forei&n or international $roceedin&s that are ab%sive or tainted b' corr%$tion

or bias. )%ch cases #ill $res%"abl' be rare, es$eciall' #hen re$%table arbitrators or arbitral instit%tions

are involved. Fe reect the $ro$osition that $roceedin&s in #hich discover' is not $er"itted necessaril'

lack inte&rit'.G.15

on H"R" /8=< and H"R" //E. Be!ore t+e H" Comm" on t+e 3udiciary, **th +on&. 10 F13G Fstate"ent of

Harr' =e@o' ?ones, Dir., +o""8n on nt8l @%les of ?%dicial <roc.G F4he $ro&ra" #ill be co"$leted in

t#o sta&es. 4he first #ill consist of the &atherin& of infor"ation on the la#, $roced%re and $ractice offorei&n co%ntries. 4he second #ill consist of efforts to brin& abo%t the har"oni9ation of the forei&n la#

and $ractice #ith o%r o#n, either b' #a' of ind%cin& the forei&n co%ntr' %nilaterall' to chan&e its la# to

accord #ith o%rs, or b' the draftin& of $roced%ral treaties for ne&otiation b' the )ecretar' of )tate./G

156 Contracting !or #rocedure, supra note -, at 55 F<%blic la# "a' res$ond to $rivate $roced%ral

orderin&s b' addressin& deficiencies in those arran&e"ents, or it "a' ratif' $rivate orderin&s thro%&h

le&islative codification or the ado$tion of %dicial standards./G.

157

One ill%stration are the blockin& stat%tes/ $assed in "an' =atin "erican co%ntries as a res$onse to

!orum non con'eniens dis"issals. >. @'an +ase' L :arrett @istro$h, Boomerang Litigation& Ho4

Con'enient Is $orum Non Con'eniens in *ransnational Litigation6, :.Y.(. N4Q= =. L >B>4. @ EM. 21,

2 F200-G F:lockin& stat%tes send the "essa&e to (.). co%rts that if transnational cases are dis"issed,the forei&n national6$laintiff "a' never have relief./G.

158



)ection 1-*2 "i&ht also #ork to %nder"ine the inte&rit' of (.). $roceedin&s b' allo#in& $arties to

circ%"vent li"itations on discover' that #o%ld other#ise be i"$osed b' (.). co%rts. One s%ch li"itation

is the li"itation on $re6filin& discover'. (.) la# si&nificantl' li"its the availabilit' of $re6filin&

discover'7 discover' is available %nder ;ederal @%le 2- to $er$et%ate testi"on', b%t not to %ncover

evidence to s%$$ort the filin& of a la#s%it. +an infor"ation obtained thro%&h 1-*2 s%bse%entl' be %sedto hel$ file a la#s%it in the (.).C Does it "atter #hether that #as the $art'8s ori&inal intentand,

relatedl', ho# sho%ld a district co%rt discern s%ch intentC10 ltho%&h #e "a' a&ree that &reater

o$$ort%nities for $re6filin& discover' sho%ld be available to (.) liti&ants &iven chan&es in $leadin& and

sanction r%les, #e believe that a $rocess of refor" sho%ld be direct and not in the first instance directed

b' the interest of $arties to $rivate arbitration.

4he cases in #hich 1-*2 is bein& %sed for asset discover' raise si"ilar concerns. 4he $re6a#ard

cases circ%"vent li"itations on the availabilit' of $re6a#ard asset discover'. 4he $ost6a#ard casescirc%"vent the $roced%res set o%t in the Ne# York +onvention and the ;ederal rbitration ct for

enforcin& an a#ard.

;inall', $arties to international trib%nal "a' face different r%les of $rivile&e than those a$$licable

in the (nited )tates. Ho#ever, (.). co%rts o%&ht to hesitate before %nder"inin& $rivac' interests that are

le&iti"ate and indeed traditional %nder (.). r%les of evidence.11

G" #ro'iders o! Legal er'ices in t+e %nited tates nother set of interests to be considered are

those of $roviders of le&al services located in the (.). 4he $rofessional interests of la#'ers do not

inevitabl' ali&n #ith those of the le&al s'ste" as a #hole, a lesson that has been slo#l' learned in the

conte!t of co"$le! liti&ation and class action $racticeand c%rrentl' #ith res$ect to the r%les of

discover'. Nonetheless, le&al services re$resent an i"$ortant co"$onent of the (.). econo"', e"$lo'in&ro%&hl' -50,000 #orkers and &eneratin& the hi&hest labor $rod%ctivit' a"on& all (.). $rofessional

service sectors.12 4he $%blic interest incl%des the interests of the $eo$le behind those fi&%res.

(.). le&al service $roviders benefit to the e!tent that the' are retained in connection #ith 1-*2

a$$lications and an' res%ltin& discover' $roceedin&s. (.). fir"s have eno'ed a do"inant $osition #orld6

#ide for le&al services connected #ith resol%tion of transnational dis$%tes, b%t that $osition has been

challen&ed b' the increasin& attractiveness of forei&n arbitration as a "echanis" for dis$%te resol%tion.13

160

ee Block v. Block, -- ;.3d 1002 F11th +ir. 2015G Ffindin& there is no stat%tor' bar on %se of doc%"ents



n e!$ansive inter$retation of 1-*2 allo#s (.). $roviders to benefit fro" forei&n arbitrations in #hich

the' "i&ht not other#ise be involved.

ltho%&h (.). le&al service $roviders are likel' to benefit if dis$%tin& $arties have &reater access

to 1-*2, the' #o%ld $robabl' benefit even "ore if those $arties resolved their dis$%tes thro%&h

do"estici.e. (.).6seatedas o$$osed to forei&n arbitration. 4his "eans that (.). fir"s have co"$etin&interests. On the one hand, the' o%&ht to favor "a!i"al %dicial assistance to forei&n or international

arbitrations in order to "a!i"i9e reven%e fro" 1-*2 a$$lications. On the other hand, the' have an

interest in li"itin& the sco$e of 1-*2 in order to enco%ra&e $arties to resolve their dis$%tes in do"estic

arbitration. co"$ro"ise "i&ht be to ens%re that (.). co%rts $rovide no "ore assistance in connection

#ith $roceedin&s before forei&n or international trib%nals than the' do for do"estic arbitration

$roceedin&s. Biven the c%rrent li"itations of - of the ;, this i"$lies that assistance sho%ld onl' be

available to the arbitrators and sho%ld not be available $rior to initiation of arbitration $roceedin&s,re&ardless of the ter"s of the arbitration a&ree"ent. n so"e circ%its, "aintainin& $arit' #ith do"estic

arbitration also "eans that assistance sho%ld not be available a&ainst non6$arties to the arbitration

a&ree"ent. Nat%rall', %nder this a$$roach chan&es in the la# &overnin& do"estic arbitrations #ill re%ire

corres$ondin& chan&es in $ractices #ith res$ect to forei&n or international $roceedin&s.1

. I"-le"entation of t0e Public Interest A--roac0

e believe that i"$le"entation of the $%blic interest/ a$$roach is best cond%cted b' the district

co%rts, on a case6b'6case basis, s%bect to a$$ellate revie# and "onitorin& b' the d"inistrative Office

of the (.). co%rts. ;or the "o"ent, an' b%rden on the "erican co%rts does not see" to %stif' a blanket

bar on $er"ittin& 1-*2 to be %sed to obtain assistance #ith $rivate forei&n arbitrations, and there areoffsettin& benefits to (.). le&al service $roviders. t $resent, the vol%"e of re%ests is too lo# to create a

si&nificant b%rden on the (.). co%rts. e ackno#led&e, ho#ever, that the sit%ation co%ld chan&e if the

co%rts #ere to send a clear si&nal #elco"in& these kinds of a$$lications. t is also i"$ortant to note the

circ%"vention risk. Even if the (nited )tates ado$ted a blanket $rohibition on discover' in aid of forei&n

$rivate arbitral trib%nals, $arties "i&ht &et aro%nd it b' strate&icall' initiatin& $roceedin&s before $%blic

trib%nals. 4he co%rse of events in Lauritzen s%&&ests that $arties can s%ccessf%ll' %se a related $%blic $roceedin&s%ch as the <ana"anian attach"ent $roceedin&as the basis for s%ccessf%ll' clai"in& their

re%est for assistance relates to the $%blic $roceedin& instead of a $rivate arbitration.

4he other $olic' concerns raised b' these kinds of a$$lications can be addressed on a case6b'6



)econd, consistent #ith the overridin& $rinci$le of $ro$ortionalit' that no# is intended to infor"

(.). discover' $ractice, o%r vie# is that third6$art' discover' o%&ht to be $er"itted onl' if the co%rt

deter"ines that the costs of s%ch disclos%re are o%t#ei&hed b' the benefits. +o%rts also sho%ld consider

#hether, des$ite the "erican r%le on attorne'8s fees, an individ%al8s costs of challen&in& a re%est for

discover' o%&ht to be recoverable, even if not $res%"$tivel' so, as the' so"eti"es are in do"estic $roceedin&s.15

4hird, district co%rts sho%ld consider #hether the re%ested assistance #o%ld co"$ro"ise the

inte&rit' of the (.). co%rts b' circ%"ventin& li"itations on discover' i"$osed in (.). $roceedin&s. n

order to ascertain #hether a $art' is atte"$tin& to circ%"vent li"itations on $re6filin& discover' in (.).

liti&ation, district co%rts sho%ld re%ire $arties to $rovide "ore infor"ation abo%t the %ses to #hich

infor"ation #ill be $%t. 4he' sho%ld also e!$licitl' consider #hether it is a$$ro$riate to $er"it either $re6

a#ard or $ost6a#ard $re6%d&"ent asset discover' that #o%ld not be available to the $arties, %nder either(.). or forei&n la#, #itho%t resort to 1-*2. >oreover, serio%s attention o%&ht to be &iven to #hether the

$arties are seekin& to "aintain %nder seal infor"ation that #o%ld not t'$icall' be re&arded as deservin&

of confidentialit' in a (.). co%rt.

O%r research s%&&ests that so"e district co%rts #o%ld have to deviate fro" their c%rrent $ractices

in order to i"$le"ent these re%ire"ents.

3. !onclusion

4he e!tent to #hich $rivate $arties sho%ld be able to control ho# the (.). co%rts assist in resolvin& their

dis$%te abo%t access to infor"ation $ertinent to an arbitral $roceedin& re%ires attention to both $rivate

and $%blic interests. 4his es$eciall' tr%e in settin&s #here the te!t and le&islative histor' of the relevant

stat%tor' $rovisions fail to $rovide concl%sive &%idance. n the case of 2* (.).+. 1-*2, the te!t and

le&islative histor' leave do%bt abo%t ho# district co%rts o%&ht to treat re%ests for %dicial assistance #ith

discover' in aid of $roceedin&s before $rivate forei&n or international trib%nals. e believe that $rinci$les

derived fro" anal'sis of the relevant $%blic and $rivate interests can be s'nthesi9ed into a #orkable

inter$retation of 1-*2. 4he $rovision sho%ld be inter$reted to $er"it b%t not re%ire assistance to

$rivate forei&n or international trib%nals. re%est for assistance sho%ld onl' be &ranted if it #o%ld beconsistent #ith the intentions of the $arties as e!$ressed in their a&ree"ent, $ro$erl' inter$reted7 if it #ill

not $lace an %nd%e b%rden on a non6$art'7 and if it #ill not co"$ro"ise the inte&rit' of the (.). co%rts. n

addition the effects of s%ch re%ests "%st be "onitored contin%all' to ens%re a&ainst %nintended and



APP)4DI5

!ase

4a"e

!itation

or

Docet

4u"ber6

!ourt Dat

e

7 of

Docet

)ntries

rd

Party

'arget8

7 of

'argets

9erits

Proceeding

Initiated8

9erits

Proceeding

!oncluded

8

4ature of

Infor"ation

Soug0t

)nforce"en

t

Proceedings

Initiated8

Petition

ranted8

7erits Assets

In re

Noorsat

Co"

No. 1156

"c6001*2 ).D.N.Y.

201

5 1 Yes 1 Yes N No Yes N Yes

In re Asia

7aritime

#aci!ic

2015 =

503-12 ).D.N.Y.

201

5 Yes 1 Yes No No Yes No No

3iangsu

teams+ip

'" uccess

uperior

2015 =

33220 ).D.N.Y.

201

5 Yes N No No No Yes No No

In re Dalla+

Albaraka

Holding

Co"

No. *156

"c6002* D. >d.

201

5 12 Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No N

In re

>rupo

%nidos

2015 =

1*15251

N.D.

+al.

201

5 * Yes 2 Yes No Yes No No No

In re

>rupo

%nidos

2015 =

1*10135 D. +olo.

201

5 5 Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No No

In re

HarbourKictoria

In's"

Holdings

No. 1156

"c60012- ).D.N.Y.

201

5 2 Yes 2 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

Noorsat

Co"5 '" >)

Capital

Corp"

No. 3156

"c600012 D. +onn.

201

5 10 Yes 1 Yes N No Yes N Yes

Aircel '" No. 3156 .D. K'. 201 * Yes 1 Yes N Yes No N No

3*



Dometic "c600005 5

In re O4l

+ipping

201 =

532012 D.N.?.

201

No 3 Yes No Yes No No Yes

Olympian

Liberty

7arine '"

Aria IntMl

No. 116

cv60*5 ).D.N.Y.

201

5 Yes 2 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

In re Cross

C+artering

No. 116

"c60012 ).D.N.Y.

201

Yes 3 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

In re

Consorcio

-- ;.3d

122 11th +ir.

201

Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No No

) parte

#etition o!

+agang

+ipping

No. 116

"c600053 ).D.N.Y.

201

1 Yes - Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

In re

#inc+uk

201 =

201 D. Del.

201

2* Yes 3 Yes No Yes No No No

In re #inc+uk 201 =3*110 D. 'o. 2013 12 Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No Yes

In re

Noorsat

Co"

No. 1136

cv6000 N.D. ll.

201

3 Yes 1 No No No Yes No Yes

In Re Bulk

Atlantic

No. 1136

"c60021 ).D.N.Y.

201

3 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

AKIC IntMl

H;

*rading '"

Reunited

LLC

No. 1136

"c6002** ).D.N.Y.

201

3 2- No 2 Yes No Yes No N Yes

In re #inc+uk

2013 =55-32 ).D. ;la.

2013 - Yes Yes N Yes No No No

In Re

#erse'er(

anza Di

Naigazion

e #A

No. 1136

"c6002*5 ).D.N.Y.

201

3 Yes 11 Yes Yes No Yes No No

In re CAK

No. 2136

cv603*02 D. N.?.

201

3 Yes 1 No No Yes No N No

In re ;. +.D. 201 30 No 1 No No Yes No No No

3



Dubey

)%$$. 2d

0 +al. 3

In re

Lauritzen

Bulkers

No. 1136

"c600251 ).D.N.Y.

201

3 3 Yes No No No Yes No N

In re

Lauritzen Bulkers

No. 1136"c600201 ).D.N.Y.

2013 Yes No No No Yes No Yes

i!andros

Carrier5

Ltd" '" LN3

IntMl Ltd"

No. 1136

"c60015* ).D.N.Y.

201

3 Yes 12 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

In re

Han4+a

Azdel

-

;.)%$$.2d

1-* D. >ass.

201

3 3* Yes 1 No No Yes No No No

Coeclerici

Asia '"

>u9arat

NR) Coke

No. 1136

"c600152 ).D.N.Y.

201

3 Yes 1- Yes Yes No Yes Yes N

) parte

Applicatio

n o!

>lencore

IntMl

No. 1136

"c60010* ).D.N.Y.

201

3 3 Yes 5 Yes Yes No Yes No N

) parte

#etition o!

Ramburs

No. 1136

"c6000- ).D.N.Y.

201

3 5 Yes - Yes No No Yes No No

In re

>rand

Bulk

+ipping

No. 1136

"c60000* ).D.N.Y.

201

3 * No 2 No No Yes No No No

In re

R+odianyl

2011

=EP)

-21* D. Kan. 2011 No 2 Yes No Yes No No No

In re

$inser'e

2011 =

5022 D.).+. 2011 No 2 N No Yes No No No

) rel

Winning

+ipping

2010 =

1-5- ).D. ;la.

201

0 1 Yes 2 No No Yes No No Yes

0



La

Comision

)9ecuti'a

'" Ne9apa

Corp"

200 =

235* 3d +ir.

200

** No 1 Yes No Yes No No No

O3C

%krna!ta '"Carpatsky

#etroleum

200 =

2*--15 D. +onn.

200

13 Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No Yes

In re

Operadora

o! 7eico

200 =

22313*

>.D.

;la.

200

3 Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No No

In re

Arbitration

in London

2

;.)%$$.2d

**2 N.D. ll.

200

3* Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No No

La

Comision

)9ecuti'a

'" )l #asoCorp"

1-

;.)%$$.2d*1 ).D. 4e!.

200* 35 Yes 2 No No Yes No No No

In re

Babcock

Borsig

5*3

;.)%$$.2d

233 D. >ass.

200

* 31 Yes 1 No No Yes No No No

In re

Hallmark

Capital

53

;.)%$$.2d

51 D. >inn.

200

- 3 Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No Yes

In re Roz

*rading

;.)%$$.2d

1221 N.D. Ba.

200

3 Yes 1 Yes No Yes No No Yes

I +ases available via estla# have either a estla# citation, or a ;ederal @e$orter citation Fif availableG in this col%"n. +ases available onl' via:loo"ber&8s docket search, or via <+E@, have a docket n%"ber.II Note n this case, the district co%rt ass%"ed #itho%t decidin& that the so%&ht6after discover' #o%ld be %sed in connection #ith a forei&n

$roceedin&, altho%&h notin& reasons to believe the infor"ation act%all' #as intended to be %sed in connection #ith on&oin& (.). confir"ation $roceedin&s. Order on >otion for >iscellaneo%s @elief at *, In re Harbo%r Mictoria nv. Holdin&s, No. 1156"c60012-6?N F).D.N.Y. ?%ne 2,2015G, E+; No. 23.

1

private preferences, public courts: the use of § 28 u.s.c. 1782 in us courts

Documents