본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Coming To America: The Use of 28 U.S.C. §1782

Ann Ryan Robertson|Scott L. Friedman
한국중재학회 (Korean Association Of Arbitration Studies(Kaas))|2015.09|중재연구 (JOURNAL OF ARBITRATION STUDIES)|제25권 제3호|pp. 59-90|DOI 10.16998/jas.2015.25.3.59

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

DiscoveryAidIntelInternational Arbitration28 U.S.C. 1782Section 1782International TribunalForeign Tribunal
주제분류무역학

초록

Since 1855, the federal courts of the United States have been empowered to assist in the gathering of evidence for use before foreign tribunals. Today, the source of that authority is 28 U.S.C. §1782 which permits the courts to order a person “to give [ ] testimony. . . or to produce a document . . . for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal… .” It was generally assumed, until the United States Supreme Court’s decision of Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in 2004, that arbitration tribunals were not “foreign tribunals” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1782. While the issue in Intel did not involve an arbitration tribunal, a statement by the Supreme Court in dicta has called into question the exact parameters of the words “foreign tribunal,” resulting in a split of opinion among the federal courts of the United States.

Abstract

Since 1855, the federal courts of the United States have been empowered to assist in the gathering of evidence for use before foreign tribunals. Today, the source of that authority is 28 U.S.C. §1782 which permits the courts to order a person “to give [ ] testimony. . . or to produce a document . . . for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal… .” It was generally assumed, until the United States Supreme Court’s decision of Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in 2004, that arbitration tribunals were not “foreign tribunals” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1782. While the issue in Intel did not involve an arbitration tribunal, a statement by the Supreme Court in dicta has called into question the exact parameters of the words “foreign tribunal,” resulting in a split of opinion among the federal courts of the United States.

참고문헌 (64)

  1. "9 U.S.C. §§ 201–089", ~
  2. "U.S.C. §§ 301–0722", ~
  3. "U.S.C. §§ 270–270(g)28", ~
  4. "U.S.C. §1782", ~
  5. "Act of May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 93, 63 Stat. 103", ~ (1949)
  6. "Act of Mar. 2, 1855, ch. 140, § 2, 10 Stat. 630", ~ (1855)
  7. "S. Rep. No. 88-1580, at 7 (1964), reprinted in 1964 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3782, 3788)", ~ (1964)
  8. "S. REP. NO. 88-1580, at 9 (1964), reprinted in 1964 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3782, 3789–90", ~ (1964)
  9. "H.R. REP. NO. 88–1052, at 9", ~ (1963)
  10. "S. REP. No. 85-2392, at 3", ~ (1958)
  11. "5th Cir. R. 47.5", ~
  12. "5th Cir. R. 47.5.4", ~
  13. "IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration", ~ (2010)
  14. "LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014)" (2015)[URL]
  15. Roger P. Alford, "Ancillary Discovery to Prove Denial of Justice", Virginia Journal of International Law, 53(1) (2012)
  16. Kenneth Beale, "Solving the §1782 Puzzle: Bringing Certainty to the Debate Over 28 U.S.C. §1782", Stanford Journal of International Law, 47 (2011)
  17. Gary B. Born, "International Commercial Arbitration" (2014)
  18. "Revised IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration" (2010)[URL]
  19. Harry Leroy Jones, "International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform", Yale Law Journal, 62 (1953)
  20. Margaret L. Moses, "The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration" (2008), Cambridge University Press
  21. S.I. Strong, "Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782: Distinguishing International Commercial Arbitration and International Investment Arbitration", Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation, 1(2) (2013)
  22. "AMD files antitrust suit against Intel" (2005)[URL]
  23. "Comparing Federal & State Courts: Court Structure" (2015)[URL]
  24. "International Trade Statistics 2014" (2014)[URL]
  25. "International trade statistics 2004" (2004)[URL]
  26. "In re Babcock Borsig AG, 583 F.Supp.2d 233 (D.Mass.2008)", ~ (2008)
  27. "In re Caratube Int’l Oil Co., 730 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2010)", ~ (2010)
  28. "In re Chevron Corp., 709 F. Supp.2d 283, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)", ~ (2010)
  29. "In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones, S.A., 685 F.3d. 987 (11th Cir. 2012)", ~ (2012)
  30. "Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 747F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014)", ~ (2014)
  31. "In re Godfrey, 526 F.Supp.2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)", ~ (2007)
  32. "In re Hanwha Azdel, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D. Mass. 2013)", ~ (2013)
  33. "In re Arbitration in London, England, 626 F. Supp. 2d 882 (N.D. Ill. 2009)", ~ (2009)
  34. "Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica del Rio Lempa v. Nejapa Power Co. LLC, 341 Fed. Appx. 821 (3d Cir. 2009)", ~ (2009)
  35. "Comisión Ejecutiva Hidroeléctrica del Río Lempa v. Nejapa Power Co ., LLC, C.A. No. 08-135-GMS, 2008 WL 4809035 (D. Del. Oct. 14, 2008)", ~ (2008)
  36. "La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelecctrica Del Rio v. El Paso Corp., 617 F. Supp. 2d 481 (S.D. Tex. 2008)", ~ (2008)
  37. "In re Dubey, 949 F. Supp. 2d 990, 993 (C.D. Cal. 2013), appeal dismissed (Aug. 27, 2013)", ~ (2013)
  38. "El Paso Corp. v. La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica Del Rio Lempa, 341 Fed. Appx. 31 (5th Cir. 2009)", ~ (2009)
  39. "Elizabeth Blackwell Health Ctr. for Women v. Knoll, 61 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 1995)", ~ (1995)
  40. "In re Finserve Grp., Ltd., No. CA 4:11-MC-2044-RBH, 2011 WL 5024264 (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2011)", ~ (2011)
  41. "GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2014)", ~ (2014)
  42. "In re Grupo Unidos Por El Canal S.A., No. 14-mc-80277-JST (DMR), 2015 WL 1815251 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015)", ~ (2015)
  43. "In re Grupo Unidos Por El Canal, S.A., No. 14-MC-00226-MSK-KMT, 2015 WL 1810135 (D.Colo. Apr. 17, 2015)", ~ (2015)
  44. "Gushlak v. Gushlak, 486 Fed. Appx. 215 (2d Cir. 2012)", ~ (2012)
  45. "In re Hallmark Capital Corp., 534 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Minn. 2007)", ~ (2007)
  46. "In re Kreke Immobilien KG, No. 13 Misc. 110(NRB), 2013 WL 5966916 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2013)", ~ (2013)
  47. "In re Oxus Gold PLC, Misc. No. 06-82-GEB, 2007 WL 1037387 (D. N.J. Apr. 2, 2007)", ~ (2007)
  48. "Indus. Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshütte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1441 (11th Cir. 1998)", ~ (1998)
  49. "Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004)", ~ (2004)
  50. "Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2000), aff'd, 253 F.3d 695 (Fed. Cir. 2001)", ~ (2001)
  51. "In re Merck & Co., Inc., 197 F.R.D.. 267 (2000)", ~ (2000)
  52. "In re Microsoft Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d 188, (S.D.N.Y. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  53. "Nat’l Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1998)", ~ (1998)
  54. "In re Nokia Corp., No. 1:07-MC-47, 2007 WL 1729664 (W.D. Mich. June 17, 2013)", ~ (2013)
  55. "Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Chubb Ins. Co, of Canada, 384 F.Supp.2d 45 (D.D.C. 2005)", ~ (2005)
  56. "Okubo v. Reynolds (In re Letters Rogatory from the Tokyo Dist. Prosecutor’s Office), 16F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 1994)", ~ (1994)
  57. "In re Operadora DB Mex., S.A. de C.V., No. 6:09-cv-383-Orl-22GJK, 2009 WL 2423138 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2009)", ~ (2009)
  58. "Republic of Ecuador v. Connor, 708 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 2013)", ~ (2013)
  59. "Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999)", ~ (1999)
  60. "In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  61. "In re Sarrio, S.A., 119 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 1997)", ~ (1997)
  62. "In re Thai–Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd., 821 F.Supp.2d 289 (D.D.C. 2011)", ~ (2011)
  63. "In re Veiga, 746 F.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010)", ~ (2010)
  64. "In re Winning (HK) Shipping Co. Ltd., No. 09-22659-MC, 2010 WL 1796579 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010)", ~ (2010)

관련 논문AI추천

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)전정원한국중재학회 · 중재연구2022 · 제32권 제3호Judicial Assistance in Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration전정원한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2019 · 제32권 제2호U.S. Courts’ Review of Article V(1)(b) under the New York Convention for the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards전정원한국중재학회 · 중재연구2014 · 제24권 제3호Judicial Assistance and Technology: A Match Made in CyberspaceKrysta M. Stanford법무부 · 국제법무연구2025 · 제4호Analysis, Recognition and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States김용길, 장병윤, David L. Welch한국중재학회 · 중재연구2017 · 제27권 제3호Adverse Inferences as Sanctions in International Arbitration전정원한국중재학회 · 중재연구2023 · 제33권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)

Avoiding Hybrid Clauses Pitfalls: An Applied FrameworkMaggie Ma, Arvin Leepp. 3-31CISG and Arbitration Agreements: A Janus-Faced Practice and How to Cope with ItAlexander Grimm, Gustav Flecke-Giammarcopp. 33-58Abuse of Process and Regulation in Commercial Arbitration – A Chinese PerspectiveArthur X. Dongpp. 91-111Enforcement of South Korean Arbitral Awards in Mainland ChinaYANG, Fanpp. 113-133Online ADR for the E-Commerce? European Union’s ADR Legislation for Cross-Border Online TradeHa-Sung Chungpp. 135-154
원문 보기