-
From the Archives
Here, without comment, is a very interesting document, the Fourth Annual Report of the Commission on International Rules of Judicial Procedure, from the 1960s. I wanted to read it because I’ve got a case where I’m rebutting an argument that an obscure Massachusetts statute that mirrors § 1782 applies only to discovery in aid of sister-state litigation……
-
Case of the Day: In re Application of Biomet Orthopaedics
The case of the day is In re Application of Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland GmbH (3d Cir. 2018). It’s an outgrowth of one of the first cases I ever wrote about on Letters Blogatory, Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 633 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011). Time flies. Here was my brief description of the earlier……
-
Case of the Day: Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore
The case of the day is Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (2d Cir. 2018). You’ll no doubt recall the name Kiobel from Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), the case in which the Supreme Court held that the ordinary presumption against extraterritorial application of US laws applies to……
-
Case of the Day: In re Schlich
The case of the day is In re Schlich (1st Cir. 2018). The decision is only the second time the First Circuit—the federal appellate court here in Boston—has reviewed a decision under § 1782, and the first since Intel, so the case is significant. I covered the District Court’s decision in December 2016.
-
Case of the Day: In re Accent Delight
The case of the day is In re Application of Accent Delight International, Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The case is part of the same § 1782 proceeding I covered in a post from August 2017, and so I am not going to repeat the facts.