<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Paper of the Day: S.I. Strong on the Applicability of Section 1782 to International Arbitration	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/31/paper-of-the-day-s-i-strong-on-the-applicability-of-section-1782-to-international-arbitration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/31/paper-of-the-day-s-i-strong-on-the-applicability-of-section-1782-to-international-arbitration/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:22:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: In re Dubey &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/31/paper-of-the-day-s-i-strong-on-the-applicability-of-section-1782-to-international-arbitration/#comment-22938</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: In re Dubey &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=14228#comment-22938</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] question we have considered many times before, and which is also the subject of S.I. Strong&#8217;s excellent paper: is a private arbitration a &#8220;proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,&#8221; for [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] question we have considered many times before, and which is also the subject of S.I. Strong&#8217;s excellent paper: is a private arbitration a &#8220;proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,&#8221; for [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Book of the Day: Comparative Law for Spanish-English Speaking Lawyers &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/31/paper-of-the-day-s-i-strong-on-the-applicability-of-section-1782-to-international-arbitration/#comment-1336</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Book of the Day: Comparative Law for Spanish-English Speaking Lawyers &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:01:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=14228#comment-1336</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] friend of Letters Blogatory whose important paper on &#167; 1782 in arbitration I&#8217;ve written about before. I only know Professor Fach by reputation, but that reputation is [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] friend of Letters Blogatory whose important paper on &sect; 1782 in arbitration I&#8217;ve written about before. I only know Professor Fach by reputation, but that reputation is [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Section 1782 and Private Arbitration: An Update &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/31/paper-of-the-day-s-i-strong-on-the-applicability-of-section-1782-to-international-arbitration/#comment-1335</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Section 1782 and Private Arbitration: An Update &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=14228#comment-1335</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] And GEA must have known that Flex-N-Gate could have asked the distict judge to provide evidence to a &#8220;foreign or international tribunal,&#8221; as district judges are authorized to do by 28 U.S.C. &#167; 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&#8212;the applicability of section 1782 to evidence sought for use in a foreign arbitration proceeding is uncertain. See S.I. Strong, &#8220;Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. &#167; 1782: Distinguishing International Commercial A&#8230;). [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] And GEA must have known that Flex-N-Gate could have asked the distict judge to provide evidence to a &#8220;foreign or international tribunal,&#8221; as district judges are authorized to do by 28 U.S.C. &sect; 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&mdash;the applicability of section 1782 to evidence sought for use in a foreign arbitration proceeding is uncertain. See S.I. Strong, &#8220;Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. &sect; 1782: Distinguishing International Commercial A&#8230;). [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: In re Application of Pinchuk &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/05/31/paper-of-the-day-s-i-strong-on-the-applicability-of-section-1782-to-international-arbitration/#comment-1334</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: In re Application of Pinchuk &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=14228#comment-1334</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] private arbitral tribunal was a tribunal within the scope of the statute. Readers should refer to S.I. Strong&#8217;s paper on this issue. Second, the judge considered the statutory prerequisites for application of &#167; [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] private arbitral tribunal was a tribunal within the scope of the statute. Readers should refer to S.I. Strong&#8217;s paper on this issue. Second, the judge considered the statutory prerequisites for application of &sect; [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
