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

1. Case of the Day: In re Application of Pinchuk | Letters Blogatory

   October 14, 2013

   […] 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 § […]

   Reply
2. Section 1782 and Private Arbitration: An Update | Letters Blogatory

   January 20, 2014

   […] 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…). […]

   Reply
3. Book of the Day: Comparative Law for Spanish-English Speaking Lawyers | Letters Blogatory

   January 13, 2017

   […] 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 […]

   Reply