Paper of the Day: S.I. Strong on the Applicability of Section 1782 to International Arbitration


S.I. Strong has posted a new and highly recommended paper on SSRN titled Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782: Distinguishing International Commercial Arbitration and International Investment Arbitration. The paper is to be published in the forthcoming issue of the Stanford Journal on Complex Litigation.

I had been working on a full review of the paper, but unfortunately my day job has gotten in the way of getting the review done in a timely way. But I do want to do my part to call attention to Professor Strong’s important contribution, so please go read it!


3 responses to “Paper of the Day: S.I. Strong on the Applicability of Section 1782 to International Arbitration”

  1. […] private arbitral tribunal was a tribunal within the scope of the statute. Readers should refer to S.I. Strong’s paper on this issue. Second, the judge considered the statutory prerequisites for application of § […]

  2. […] And GEA must have known that Flex-N-Gate could have asked the distict judge to provide evidence to a “foreign or international tribunal,” as district judges are authorized to do by 28 U.S.C. § 1782; see, e.g., Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 633 F.3d 591, 593 (7th Cir. 2011). The German panel conducting the arbitration between GEA and Flex-N-Gate might be considered such a tribunal. See Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecommunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 685 F.3d 987, 997-98 (11th Cir. 2012). (Or might not—the applicability of section 1782 to evidence sought for use in a foreign arbitration proceeding is uncertain. See S.I. Strong, “Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782: Distinguishing International Commercial A…). […]

  3. […] friend of Letters Blogatory whose important paper on § 1782 in arbitration I’ve written about before. I only know Professor Fach by reputation, but that reputation is […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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