The case of the day is In re Genial Institucional Corretora de Cambio (S.D.N.Y. 2025). Genial sued BP Securities and others in Brazil, seeking a declaration that it was in a de facto partnership with BP, dissolution of the partnership, and its share of the assets. It brought an application for discovery under Section 1782 in New York, seeking leave to serve subpoenas to take four depositions and to compel the production of documents.

One of the respondents, Sousa, was served with the subpoena in New York,¹More precisely, someone accepted it on his behalf, but Sousa never argued that the service was improper. but he argued that he did not reside and was not found in the district, as Section 1782 requires. The court, following Second Circuit precedent, held that the “resides or is found” prong of the statutory analysis reaches to “the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.”

There’s also a pretty standard Intel analysis in the case, but I want to focus for a minute on Sousa’s argument. Sometimes I find that it’s worth revisiting points that are or that seem to be clearly established. The basic American rule on “tag service” is that if you are served with process in the territorial jurisdiction of a court, then you are subject to the court’s jurisdiction for all purposes. But there is process and there is process. There are summonses and there are subpoenas.

In ordinary domestic litigation, if you are served with a summons in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, then you are stuck. That is, you will not have a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. But in ordinary domestic litigation, if you are served with a subpoena in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, then yes, the service of the subpoena was valid and you are subject to the court’s jurisdiction, but under FRCP 45(c)(1), a subpoena, even if validly served on you, cannot require you to show up somewhere more than 100 miles from where you reside, are employed regularly transact business in person.

In short, yes, anyone can be served with a subpoena when he or she is within the territorial jurisdiction of the court from which it issues. But the rule of tag service doesn’t work the same for subpoenas as it does for summonses.

There’s another interesting point in the decision. In Intel, the Supreme Court noted that a court could condition assistance under Section 1782 on the applicant’s “reciprocal exchange of information.” Here, the court did condition the discovery on reciprocal discovery, noting second relevant factors. First, under Brazilian law, it was not yet possible for either party to seek discovery in Brazil. Second, Genial, the applicant, was not “found” in the United States, and thus the respondents could not simply bring their own Section 1782 application. The respondents did not specify the discovery they wanted to take, instead requesting permission to issue subpoenas to Genial seeking discovery “similar to those sought by Applicants.” But of course, the court will get to weigh in sooner or later on the scope of the discovery sought.

• 1
  More precisely, someone accepted it on his behalf, but Sousa never argued that the service was improper.