Originally published June 28, 2012
Keywords: foreign commercial arbitration, discovery, Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc.,1 has held that a foreign arbitration panel is a "tribunal" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1782, thereby authorizing parties to such arbitrations to seek discovery from a United States district court pursuant to that statute.
Section 1782 authorizes a US district court to order a person residing in that district to produce documents and provide testimony "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal." Prior to 2004, two federal courts of appeals (the 2d and 5th Circuits) had held that an arbitration panel is not a "tribunal" within the meaning of §1782. But dicta from the US Supreme Court in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), suggested otherwise, and most district courts thereafter have deemed arbitration panels to be tribunals for purposes of §1782. However, some district courts and commentators have suggested that only investment treaty arbitrators, and not international commercial arbitrators, qualify as a tribunal under §1782.
The Eleventh Circuit decision in Consorcio Ecuatoriano is the first appellate court decision to address this "tribunal" issue squarely since the Supreme Court's Intel decision. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the arbitral panel at issue, which is sited in Ecuador, is a tribunal because it is a first-instance decision-maker with authority over the gathering and submission of evidence and with the power to issue binding orders that are subject to judicial review.
This ruling is likely to be controversial, because it may enable parties to circumvent the limited document disclosures that typically are available in international arbitration by seeking broad discovery from a US affiliate of the opposing arbitral party. We therefore expect to see further battles over this issue in other federal circuits, and perhaps definitive Supreme Court resolution in the future.
1 No. 11-12897, 2012 WL 2369166 (11th Cir. June 25, 2012).
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2012. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.