Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page

US International Arbitration

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

FILTER BY:
AND/OR
  • Terra Towers Corp. and TBS Management, S.A. v. Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., No. 22-CV-06150-VEC (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2022)
    07/18/2022

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand and granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York, finding that the previous removal to this court was proper under the New York Convention and that transfer was warranted because the case had strong ties to S.D.N.Y. such as ongoing related arbitration and litigation in New York.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. BB Energy USA, LLC, No. 22-20021 (5th Cir. July 14, 2022)
    07/14/2022

    Court reversed and vacated writ of attachment because lower court erroneously determined that defendant, a Haitian government agency, had explicitly waived its sovereign immunity from prejudgment attachment.  Regardless of whether a contract contains language waiving sovereign immunity from suit generally, waiver of prejudgment attachment must be express, clear, and unambiguous.

  • Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC v. Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, No. 22-CV-00781-WSH (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2022)
    06/14/2022

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining defendants from pursuing and the AAA from further processing defendants’ demand for arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff had established more than a reasonable probability of success on the merits that it never agreed to submit to arbitration, that a TRO was necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm, that the balance of harms clearly and strongly weighed in favor of plaintiff, and that granting of a TRO was in the public interest.

  • ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401 (S. Ct. June 13, 2022)
    06/13/2022

    Supreme Court, in a consolidated appeal, reversed the district court’s order in ZF Automotive denying the motion to quash a 28 USC §1782 application and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in AlixPartners that affirmed the district court’s order granting a discovery request.  Supreme Court unanimously held that neither the tribunal under the auspices of the German Institution of Arbitration, nor the ad hoc tribunal under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, fell within the scope of the term “tribunal” in 28 USC §1782(a).  Court held that only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body constituted a “foreign or international tribunal,” reasoning that although a “tribunal” need not be a formal court, attached to the modifiers “foreign or international,” the phrase is best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority.

  • Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 21-CV-10940-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)
    03/16/2022

    Court confirmed, in part, the order granting $100 million attachment in aid of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7502(c) to the extent of $3 million and granted cross-motion to vacate such order as to the remaining $97 million.  Court found that petitioner showed that it was likely to succeed on request to confirm $3 million arbitral award but failed to show that it was likely to receive arbitral award of $97 million in separate arbitration.

  • Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 20-2152 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021)
    12/03/2021

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to dismiss an action without prejudice rather than stay it.  Court of appeals held that § 3 of the FAA conclusively establishes defendant’s right to stay an action pending arbitration of the remaining arbitrable claims, and that the FAA’s language that a district court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action” conveys a mandatory obligation.

  • Ukraine v. Pao Taftnet, No. 21-MC-00376-JGK-SN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021)
    11/22/2021

    Court affirmed magistrate judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to quash non-party subpoenas regarding post-judgment discovery following Plaintiff’s avoidance of payment of an arbitral award confirmed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Court overruled all five of Plaintiff’s objections, finding in particular that the magistrate judge properly applied precedent regarding a foreign sovereign’s standing to dispute the relevance of non-party subpoenas and did not avoid or discount Ukraine’s interests or treat those interests as equivalent to individual or corporate interests.

  • CPR Management S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures L.P., Nos. 20-2343 20-2344 (3d Cir. Nov. 22, 2021)
    11/22/2021

    Court affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award by the district court.  Court found that the district court properly struck Defendant-appellant’s application for interpleader because it was procedurally not permitted under the FAA as a pleading, not a motion; that the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award because none of the four grounds for vacating an award applied; and that the court properly awarded prejudgment interest because Defendant-appellant’s argument that prejudgment interest should be eliminated failed to meet one of the three grounds for the modification of an arbitration award as the “promotion of justice” alone is insufficient.  Court also admonished Defendant-appellant for prematurely quitting the arbitration.

  • CMB Infrastructure Group IX, LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance, Incorporated, No. 21-CV-00214-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2021)
    11/15/2021

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration for certain claims, finding that the arbitration clause remained active after termination of the agreement and that both signatory and non-signatory defendants could compel arbitration.

  • Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. v. Kartha Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 21-CV-00129-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2021)
    11/08/2021

    Court granted motion to amend protective order to aid in a related Swiss arbitration.  Court found that allowing the Swiss arbitration counsel to access and use discovery that had been exchanged by the parties in U.S. litigation would reduce costs for all involved.

  • In Re Ex Parte Application of Iraq Telecom Limited For An Order To Obtain Discovery, No. 19-MC-00175-RBS (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2021)
    11/05/2021

    Court granted motion in part and denied in part a motion to compel production of documents in a limited discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  Court held that all of the documents listed in the privilege log, except for three, were not protected by privilege and should be produced.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. BB Energy USA, LLC, No. 21-20534 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2021)
    11/04/2021

    Court denied motion to stay discovery order in garnishment case involving a sovereign immunity defense.  Instead, court ordered the district court to limit discovery “only to verify allegations of specific fact crucial to an immunity determination.”

  • Cota v. Art Brand Studios LLC, No. 21-CV-01519-LJL (S.D.N.Y. October 15, 2021)
    10/15/2021

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court found defendant eliminated its ability to arbitrate by allowing the arbitration to terminate after an arbitration panel gave it the option to cover the arbitration costs of both parties or cease the proceedings and it chose the latter.

  • Vale S.A. v. BSG Resources Limited, No. 19-CV-03619-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y. October 15, 2021)
    10/15/2021

    Court compelled alter ego of defendant to comply with discovery requests in aid of execution of plaintiff’s judgment arising from the Court’s enforcement of a London Court of International Arbitration award.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti et al., No. 21-CV-04960-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2021)
    09/03/2021

    Court granted non-party central bank’s motion to intervene in action seeking a maritime attachment in aid of arbitration against foreign state.  Court vacated the attachment, finding that plaintiff did not rebut the presumption that the central bank’s account was immune from attachment under Section 1611(b)(1) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  Court additionally granted central bank’s motion to quash subpoena and protective order.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 4:21-CV-01953 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2021)
    09/03/2021

    Court granted motion to stay attachment proceedings, pending a decision on plaintiff’s action to confirm and enforce the partial final arbitral award in New York federal district court.

  • Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2021)
    08/17/2021

    Court denied respondent’s motion to stay the case pending appeal, finding that respondent had not demonstrated any irreparable harm, that respondent had little likelihood of success considering that Sixth Circuit precedent permits discovery under § 1782 for private arbitration, that petitioner could suffer harm if discovery is stayed, and that the public interest weighed against a stay.  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel discovery under § 1782 and ordered respondent to comply with the subpoenas.

  • CW Baice Limited v. The Wisdomobile Group Limited, No. 5:20-CV-03526-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2021)
    07/20/2021

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dissolve preliminary injunction on the dissipation of defendants’ assets pending an arbitration before the HKIAC, finding that a Hong Kong court’s decision to dissolve a similar injunction did not change the balance of equities which led the U.S. court to issue the injunction in question.

  • In re Ex Parte Application of Eni S.p.A. for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00334-MN (D. Del. July 15, 2021)
    07/15/2021

    Court denied respondents’ motion for re-argument and reconsideration, finding that respondents did not provide a compelling reason for reconsideration of its decision to grant discovery for use in the Italian criminal proceeding and the ICSID proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court also rejected respondents’ request to narrow the subpoenas to apply only to the respondent with a financial interest in the proceedings, concluding that respondents should have raised the argument earlier.  Court denied petitioner’s motion for sanctions, finding that petitioner was not entitled to costs of responding to the motion.

  • The Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an Order granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 20-2653 (2d Cir. July 15, 2021)
    07/15/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed the District Court’s order granting petitioners’ application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to obtain discovery from a third party for use in an arbitration proceeding between plaintiff and the Republic of Lithuania under the bilateral investment treaty between Lithuania and Russia.  Court of appeals found that the proceeding was before a foreign or international tribunal because the arbitration was between an investor and foreign state party to a bilateral investment treaty and the tribunal was established by that treaty; that plaintiff qualified as an interested person under § 1782 because it is a party to the arbitration; and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the relevant factors.

  • International Energy Ventures Management L.L.C. v. United Energy Group Limited, No. 20-20221 (4th Cir. May 28, 2021)
    05/28/2021

    Court reversed the district court’s finding that International Energy Ventures Management’s (“IEVM”) pursuit of litigation did not prevent it from returning to arbitration, after the dispute bounced between three courts and two arbitrations over the course of seven years.  Court found that two arbitrators exceeded their powers in violation of the FAA when they determined that IEVM waived its right to arbitrate through litigation-conduct, as that determination is presumptively a judicial matter, and the parties failed to contract around the general rule that courts resolve litigation-conduct waivers. Court held that IEVM substantially invoked the judicial process to United Energy Group’s detriment.

  • Luxshare, Ltd. v. Zf Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2021)
    05/27/2021

    Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part motion to quash subpoenas in connection with discovery for use in foreign proceedings, finding that plaintiff met the statutory requirements of 28 USC 1782(a) but ordering that the discovery be circumscribed.

  • Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L. v. Barnes Thornburg LLP, No. 2:21-MC-00137-JFW (C.D. Cal. May. 17, 2021) 
    05/17/2021

    Court denied petitioner’s application for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  Court held that, in the absence of binding authority on whether private arbitrations qualify as “foreign or international tribunals, it would join lower courts in the Circuit in concluding that private arbitrations are not “tribunals” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1782.

  • In re Application of Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L., No. 1:21-MC-00005-GMH (D.D.C. May 10, 2021)
    05/10/2021

    Court granted applicant’s application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for testimonial and documentary evidence for use in an international arbitration before the DIFC-LCIA.  Court declined to find whether Section 1782 discovery is available in private commercial arbitrations, finding instead that discovery was proper where the DIFC-LCIA was state-sponsored by the United Arab Emirates.

  • Healey v. Elliot, P.C., No. 20-CV-13209-MAG-RSW (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2021)
    04/27/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to take limited discovery to respond to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The court noted that limited discovery requests of this kind are entertained by the Sixth Circuit because motions to compel arbitration are evaluated similarly to motions for summary judgment.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, No. 0:20-MC-00081-JRT-KMM (D. Minn. April 1, 2021) 
    04/01/2021

    Court sua sponte entered order staying the matter for an application to take discovery for use in foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, pending Supreme Court’s review of the issue.

  • Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., No. 20-35931 (9th Cir. March 31, 2021) 
    03/31/2021

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order dismissing action for enforcement of a third-party subpoena issued by arbitrators for want of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the alleged subpoenaed information would likely impact more than $75,000 of petitioner’s claims in the arbitration.

  • Cognac Ferrand S.A.S. v. Mystique Brands LLC, No. 20-CV-05933-PAE (S.D.N.Y. January 7, 2021)
    01/07/2021

    Court denied Cognac Ferrand’s application for a temporary restraining order preventing Mystique Brands from moving forward with its enforcement of an arbitral award in France. Court found no serious question going to the merits necessary to support a temporary restraining order noting that review of an arbitral award is severely limited, and Ferrand did not provide evidence that would support vacatur of the award.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC and The Boeing Company, No. 19-1847 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020) 
    09/22/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not authorize courts to compel discovery for use in private foreign arbitration.  Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel did not authorize courts to provide discovery assistance in private foreign arbitrations and noted that interpreting § 1782 to include private foreign arbitral tribunals would conflict with the FAA.

  • In re: Ex Parte Application of Axion Holding Cyprus Ltd. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Leave to Take Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00290-MN (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2020) 
    09/18/2020

    Court denied petitioner’s ex parte application for leave to take discovery for use in two private LCIA arbitrations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that although the Third Circuit has not determined whether private commercial arbitrations are “tribunals” within the meaning of the statute, it agreed with the recent district court cases holding that private commercial arbitrations are not “tribunals.”  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the LCIA acts with the authority of the state because the tribunals are governed by the U.K. Arbitration Act of 1996 and the parties may seek judicial review.

  • In re the Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign State Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1::1199-MC-0000440011-AT (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020)
    08/25/2020

    Court granted petitioner’s application to seek discovery of third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that although private commercial arbitrations do not qualify as “foreign or international tribunals” under the statute, recent precedent suggests that arbitrations conducted pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty do qualify.

  • Ullrich v. Ullrich, No. 20-CV-23505 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2020)
    08/25/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in aid of an impending international arbitration, finding that the vague possibility that defendant would close on a transaction relevant to the arbitration was insufficient to allege that immediate and irreparable harm would occur absent injunctive relief.

  • In re: Application of Atvos Agroindustrial Investimentos, S.A. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1:20 MC-00211-GBD-SDA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)
    08/24/2020

    Court granted in part respondents’ motion to quash subpoenas issued under petitioner’s motion to take discovery from third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in furtherance of arbitral and injunction proceedings, finding inter alia that petitioner was not entitled to take discovery for use in an arbitral proceeding as it was not “a foreign or international tribunal.”

  • In Re Petition of the Republic of Turkey, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. Cal. July 17, 2020)
    07/17/2020

    Court denied petition seeking an order directing discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that the petitioner met the statutory requirements of § 1782, rejecting respondent’s contention that§ 1782 prohibited discovery because the petitioner was seeking discovery not only to defend itself in international arbitration, but also to gather evidence for a criminal trial against respondent.  However, the court found that one of the intel factors, whether the requests are intrusive and burdensome, required the court to deny the petition because respondent asserted his fifth amendment privilege and because respondent has indefinite asylum in the United States. Court thus exercised its discretion to deny the petition.

  • La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited v. Lan, No. 1:20-MC-00200-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) 
    05/19/2020

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for an order of attachment in aid of two arbitrations pending before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”).  Court found petitioners met requirements for attachment under New York CPLR § 7502(c) and Article 62, because petitioners had a cause of action in the form of the arbitrations; a likelihood of success on the merits, as they were already awarded arbitral awards against the respondents; the awards may be ineffectual without the attachment; and respondents had no pending counterclaims against petitioners.

  • In re Ex Parte Petition of the Republic of Turkey for an Order Directing Discovery from Hamit Cicek Pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. May 18, 2020) 
    05/18/2020

    Court denied motions to vacate, quash, compel discovery, and issue sanctions against the Republic of Turkey and granted the Republic’s motion to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ICSID arbitration.  Court found that the ex parte application did not deny the subpoena recipient due process, the Republic was not barred from § 1782 discovery because of pending criminal charges against the subpoena recipient, and granting assistance did not circumvent US public policy.

  • Sampedro v. Silver Point Capital, L.P., No. 19-272 (2d Cir. May. 1, 2020)
    05/01/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motion to compel discovery under 28 USC § 1782. Court found that district court did not need to consider procedural parity with respect to all possible foreign proceedings when determining whether to grant party reciprocal discovery under the section.

  • Washington National Insurance Co. v. OBEX Group LLC, No. 19-225-CV (2d Cir. May. 1, 2020)
    05/01/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motions to dismiss petitions to enforce arbitration summonses requiring non-parties to the arbitration to testify at a hearing and produce certain documents in the arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act 9 USC § 7. Court found that district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that various requirements for the enforcement of the petitions were met.

  • In re Empresa Publica de Hidrocarburos del Ecuador – EP Petroecuador v. Worleyparsons International, Inc., No. 4:19-MC-02534 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2020)
    04/13/2020

    Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate and quash a subpoena granted under 28 U.S.C. 1782, finding that applicant’s petition met the statutory requirements.  Court rejected, inter alia, respondent’s argument that applicant, as an Ecuadorian state-owned entity, was attempting to circumvent discovery procedures in a pending arbitration between Ecuador and respondent – finding that applicant was a non-party to that arbitration and that there was no evidence that applicant was operating as an instrumentality of the Ecuadorian government. 

  • Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.A.R.L, v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:19-CV-03171-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020)
    03/30/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to transfer the action seeking to confirm an arbitration award to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) and referred all other pending motions to that court.  The award was rendered by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty. Petitioner sought to confirm it under the New York Convention while respondent argued that the motion should be stayed pending set aside proceedings in Sweden.  Court reasoned that venue transfer was appropriate because the D.D.C. was designated by congress as the dedicated venue for civil cases involving foreign states, and a transfer would promote judicial economy as there were parallel actions before the D.D.C.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. The Boeing Company, No. 18-2454 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020)
    03/30/2020

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s denial of an application to obtain testimony pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in aid of an arbitration in the United Kingdom.  Court found that a U.K. arbitral panel in a private arbitration was a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782, reasoning that even under a more restrictive definition of “entities acting with the authority of the State” the U.K. arbitral panel qualifies because of the governmental regulation and oversight of arbitration under U.K. law.  Court also rejected the argument that this holding would give foreign arbitrations more extensive discovery than is available to domestic arbitrations under the FAA, clarifying that § 1782 does not authorize discovery but merely permits a district court to effectively act as a surrogate for a foreign tribunal receiving testimony and documents for use in the proceeding before the tribunal.

  • In re Application of EWE Gasspeicher GmbH, No. 1:19-MC-00109-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2020)
    03/17/2020

    Court granted motion to vacate an order for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 obtained ex parte, finding that the ambit of § 1782 did not extend to arbitral proceedings arising from a private commercial contract, which were not proceedings before a foreign court or a quasi-judicial agency.

  • Petersen-Dean, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., No. 1:19-CV-11299-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2020)
    02/11/2020

    Court denied motion to vacate prehearing security award granted by arbitral tribunal, finding that the arbitral tribunal was authorized to award interim security, and that it had properly exercised its power to do so.

  • In re Bio Energias Comercializadora de energia LTDA, No. 1:19-CV-24497 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2020)
    01/31/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery in aid of an arbitration in Brazil.  While court assumed that the foreign arbitration qualified as a foreign or international tribunal, it found that the Intel factors weighed in favor of quashing the subpoenas.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:20-CV-00090-DWL (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted a motion to quash a subpoena previously authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court noted that Kazakhstan was involved in a dispute under a BIT and was looking for information regarding whether a Nevada corporation was controlled by non-U.S. nationals which may preclude the corporation from asserting claims under the BIT.  Court held that because the petition to serve the subpoena was granted on an ex parte basis with the understanding that the subpoenaed party would be free to challenge it, the court should reexamine the § 1782 factors in considering the motion to quash. Court considered the Intel factors and found that they weighed in favor of granting the motion to quash.

  • UBS Securities LLC, v. Prowse, No. 1:20-CV-00217 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted a preliminary injunction and a petition to compel arbitration, preventing respondent from pursuing claims under Section 120 of New York’s compensation law.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the employment agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.  Court further found that the question of whether the Section 120 claims were within the scope of the agreement had been clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrators.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2019)
    12/16/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to seal its response to respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena to compel testimony and production of evidence in a pending investor-state arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.

  • Robertson v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02567-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2019).
    11/01/2019

    Court granted petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum issued by an AAA arbitrator against a non-party to the arbitration proceeding. Court found that arbitrator was authorized to issue the subpoena under §7 of the FAA and that the court had authority under the FAA to enforce the arbitrator’s subpoena, as petitioner had demonstrated that the information sought was integral to his claim and otherwise unavailable, giving rise to a special need for the information.

  • In Re Bio Energia Comercializadora de Energia LTDA., No. 1:19-MC-24497-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2019).
    11/01/2019

    Court granted ex parte application, pursuant to 28 USC §1782, for an order to serve subpoenas on two US-based executives for documents relevant to a pending arbitration seated in Sao Paulo. The court did not supply reasoning in its order, but noted that motions to quash the subpoenas may be addressed pursuant to the procedures set forth in the FRCP. 

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2019)
    10/28/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for leave to serve a subpoena on respondent.  Court found that all three criteria under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) were satisfied, as (i) Lawler resided in Arizona and had a business address in Arizona; (ii) the purpose of the application was to acquire information for use in an arbitration proceeding; and (iii) petitioner was a party to the arbitration at issue.  Court also found that the four discretionary factors listed in Supreme Court decision Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004) weighed in favor of granting the application.

View All