Case of the Day: Interbrew v. Molson Coors

The case of the day is Interbrew Central European Holding BV v. Molson Coors Brewing Co. (D. Colo. 2013). The case is an entirely routine § 1782 application; the reason I call attention to it is that the judge, or rather the magistrate judge (Mix, M.J.), mused on the question whether she had authority to decide the application outright, or whether she could only make a report and recommendation to the court. This was an issue I have previously considered. Judge Mix concluded that she had authority to decide the matter, though she noted the issue was not settled in the Tenth Circuit. I note the competing considerations in the prior post.

One response to “Case of the Day: Interbrew v. Molson Coors”

  1. […] The case of the day is In re Application of Platebright Ltd. (D.V.I. 2014). This is our first case from the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the first § 1782 case from the Virgin Islands to be reported in a Westlaw database. The application itself, and the outcome of the case, was entirely routine: the court granted an application for bank records relevant to a UK fraud case brought by Plateright Ltd., a UK firm, against Island Eco Resorts Ltd. and its director, Simon Piggott. There is, though, one interesting point. The application was referred first to a magistrate judge, and the magistrate issued a report and recommendation rather than a decision on the application. As I noted in a prior post, there’s a question whether a § 1782 application is a dispositive matter that must be decided by a district judge, or whether it’s the kind of matter that can be referred to a magistrate judge for a decision (subject to a party’s right to make objections to the district judge). This case implies—but doesn’t say expressly—that in the Virgin Islands, at least, a magistrate judge lacks the power to make a final decision on a § 1782 application. As we saw, a magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey (which, like the Virgin Islands, is in the Third Circuit) take the contrary view, as did a magistrate judge in the District of Colorado. […]

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Your email address will not be published.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.