The U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Scope of Judicial Assistance in Private International Arbitral Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 in its Recent Decision of ZF Auto. US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 596 U.S. ___ (2022)
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently held that private adjudicatory bodies do not count as “foreign or international tribunals” in terms of 28 U.S.C. §1782 (hereinafter §1782), the statute which permits U.S. district courts to order testimony or the production of evidence “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” Such decision has clarified that the statute only reaches governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies, and therefore resolved a circuit split. Thus, it should be abundantly clear now that judicial assistance from U.S. district courts are no longer available for discovery purposes in private arbitration proceedings abroad.
Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently held that private adjudicatory bodies do not count as “foreign or international tribunals” in terms of 28 U.S.C. §1782 (hereinafter §1782), the statute which permits U.S. district courts to order testimony or the production of evidence “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” Such decision has clarified that the statute only reaches governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies, and therefore resolved a circuit split. Thus, it should be abundantly clear now that judicial assistance from U.S. district courts are no longer available for discovery purposes in private arbitration proceedings abroad.
참고문헌 (17)
- "Black’s Law Dictionary" (2006)
- Beale, K., "Solving the §1782 Puzzle: Bringing Certainty to the Debate over 28 U.S.C. §1782’s Application to International Arbitration", Stanford Journal of International Law, 47 (2011)
- 전정원, "Judicial Assistance in Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration", 상사판례연구, 32(2), pp.297~326 (2019), 한국상사판례학회[DOI]
- Rothstein, Daniel J., "A Proposal to Clarify U.S. Law on Judicial Assistance in Taking Evidence for International Arbitration", American Review of International Arbitration, 19(1) (2009)
- "9 U.S.C. §7", ~
- "28 U.S.C. §1782", ~
- "In re Application to Obtain Discovery for United States in Foreign Proceedings, 939 F.3d 710", ~ (2019)
- "In re Babcock Borsig AG, 583 F. Supp. 2d 233", ~ (2008)
- "In re EWE Gasspeicher GmbH, No. 20-1830, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 17149", ~ (2022)
- "In re Fund for Prot. of Investor Rights in Foreign States v. AlixPartners, LLP, 5 F.4th 216", ~ (2021)
- "In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1221", ~ (2006)
- "Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 124 S. Ct. 2466, 159 L. Ed. 2d 355", ~ (2004)
- "Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880", ~ (1999)
- "Nat’l Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184", ~ (1999)
- "Prescision Indus., Inc. v. Qualitech Steel SBQ, LLC, 327 F.3d 537", ~ (2003)
- "Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce, PLC, 975 F.3d 689", ~ (2020)
- "ZF Auto. US, Inc., et al. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 596 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2078, 213 L. Ed. 2d 163", ~ (2022)