Case of the Day: Thai-Lao Lignite v. Laos

The case of the day is Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (S.D.N.Y. 2012). We have reported on this dispute twice before. In the first post, the judge confirmed an arbitral award in favor of Thai-Lao against Laos. In the second, the judge granted judicial assistance to Thai-Lao, which had brought an exequatur proceeding in Paris to confirm the award, seeking information from a third party about Laos’s assets in France. In today’s case of the day, the Thai-Lao sought judicial assistance to obtain evidence for use in the same French proceeding. This time, though, Thai-Lao sought to obtain evidence from Laos itself.

The judge correctly (in my view) dismissed the case on the grounds that Laos, a foreign sovereign, is not a “person” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The leading case on this point is Al Fayed v. CIA, 229 F.3d 272 (D.C. Cir. 2000), in which the court, noting the general rule that the word “person”, when used in a statute, is not construed to include the sovereign, dismissed a quixotic attempt by Dodi Al Fayed to obtain information from the CIA for use in French proceedings involving the death of Diana, the Princess of Wales.

One consequence of this view, which I haven’t seen in a reported case, is that a foreign sovereign should not qualify as an “interested person” able to seek judicial assistance under the statute. Else the word “person” would have to be given two different constructions in the same statutory provision!

3 responses to “Case of the Day: Thai-Lao Lignite v. Laos”

  1. […] 1782 proceedings Chevron brought in the Lago Agrio affair, though I also discussed it briefly in my post on Thai-Lao Lignite v. Laos. ↩Rule 408 makes settlement offers and agreements, and statements made during settlement […]

  2. […] in substance to the decision in Al Fayed v. CIA, 229 F.3d 272 (D.C. Cir. 2000), which I noted in my April 5, 2012 post on the Thai-Lao Lignite case. In both cases, the judges found that under ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, as […]

  3. […] the case of day for August 25, 2011. I have also reported on two related cases under § 1782, one a request for judicial assistance to obtain discovery from Laos itself, the other a request for […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.