November 28, 2021

Volume XI, Number 332

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sixth Circuit’s Plain-Meaning Approach to Foreign Arbitration Discovery

Parties may now seek discovery from district courts within the Sixth Circuit for use in foreign private arbitrations. In Abdul Latif Jameel Transportation Company v. FedExa unanimous panel held that the plain meaning of the phrase “foreign or international tribunal” included non-governmental tribunals. The decision addresses an important foreign-discovery provision that, according to some at the ABA, had raised more questions than courts had answered.

Following a deep dive into dictionaries, treatises, and judicial precedent, the Sixth Circuit held that a federal district court has the authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), to compel discovery from a U.S. corporation for use in a foreign private proceedings—in this case, a Dubai arbitration. The decision departed from two 1999 precedents of the Second and Fifth Circuits, which limit discovery to government proceedings. Those opinions, according to Judge Bush, “turned to legislative history too early in the interpretive process.”

His unanimous opinion (Chief Judge Cole and Judge Griffin joining), by contrast, adopted a textualist interpretation to § 1782(a). That statute allows U.S. courts to order a person or corporation that resides in the district to produce testimony, a statement, documents, or things “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” According to both legal and non-legal dictionaries, the ordinary meaning of the word “tribunal” in 1964 (when Congress enacted § 1782(a)) embraced private arbitrations. So did an 1853 treatise written by none other than Justice Joseph Story, a 20th century string of state supreme court opinions, and various U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

What does this mean for U.S. businesses and counsel? District courts in the Sixth Circuit may start hearing from more parties embroiled in foreign disputes. Discovery is by no means absolute, however: under the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Intel v. ADM, several discretionary factors govern whether trial judges should compel discovery under §1782(a), even when the law allows it. Absent a cert grant, the Western District of Tennessee will face that question on remand.

© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume IX, Number 263
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Benjamin Beaton Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Cincinnati, OH
Partner

Benjamin Beaton is co-chair of the Appellate & Supreme Court Practice. He handles complex appeals, regulatory disputes and law-intensive trial proceedings. Ben has authored more than a dozen briefs at the US Supreme Court, where he previously served as a law clerk. He has drafted dozens more in the federal courts of appeal and state supreme courts, and regularly confers with trial and in-house counsel regarding appellate and motions strategy. Chambers has noted the firm’s “well-resourced appellate team, with notable experience in disputes heard before the Sixth Circuit.” The...

513-361-1258
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement