• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / District Court’s Order Details 28 USC § 1782 Requirements for Granting Ex Parte Petition for Discovery of Documents in Foreign Proceeding

District Court’s Order Details 28 USC § 1782 Requirements for Granting Ex Parte Petition for Discovery of Documents in Foreign Proceeding

May 18, 2022 by Benjamin Stearns

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted an ex parte petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) for the discovery of documents held by Aimbridge Hospitality, Norton Rose Fulbright, and White & Case for use in a proceeding in the British Virgin Islands. In so doing, the court noted that such ex parte petitions are “routinely grant[ed].”

A district court has the authority to grant a section 1782 petition where:

  1. The person from whom discovery is sought resides or is found in the district of the district court to which the application is made;
  2. The discovery is for use in a foreign proceeding before a foreign or international tribunal; and;
  3. The application is made by a foreign or international tribunal or any interested person.

The court also described the following discretionary factors that the court may consider:

  1. Whether the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding, in which case the need for section 1782(a) aid generally is not as apparent;
  2. The nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign court or agency abroad to U.S. federal court judicial assistance;
  3. Whether the section 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions; and
  4. Whether the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome.

The petition, supported by declarations and memoranda of law, satisfied the required section 1782 criteria, where the petitioner averred that the respondents all resided in or were found in the Southern District, and the documents would be used to “strengthen [the petitioner’s] position” in ongoing litigation in the British Virgin Islands, which the petitioner had initiated, making it an “interested party.” In addition, each of the discretionary factors, including the fact that courts in the Southern District “routinely grant § 1782 applications for discovery for use in the BVI,” also weighed in favor of granting the petition.

In re Application of Tethyan Copper Co. Pty. Ltd., No. 1:21-mc-00377 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2022).

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions, Discovery

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.