Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Brief Fact Summary.

An American company is suing another American company in Europe and is attempting to use an American court to compel the production of a document for the foreign proceeding.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A district court can order production of documents for use in a foreign tribunal even if the party seeking the documents would not be able to obtain the same documents in the foreign jurisdiction.

Facts.

Plaintiff Micro filed an antitrust complaint against Defendant Intel with the Directorate-General for Competition of the commission of the European Communities. Both companies were headquartered in Northern California. Plaintiff Micro filed a petition with the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California to compel production of Intel documents for use in the antitrust proceeding before the European Commission, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782.

Issue.

Can a district court order production of documents for use in a foreign tribunal even if the party seeking the documents would not be able to obtain the documents in a foreign jurisdiction?

Held.

Yes, under 28 U.S.C. §1782 a district court can order production of documents for use in a foreign tribunal even if the party seeking the documents would not be able to obtain the same documents in the foreign jurisdiction. The judgement of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for the district court to use its discretion in determining whether to order production.

Dissent.

.

Concurrence.

Justice Justice Scalia concurring

The majority did not have to cite a Senate Committee report to support its opinion because the text of § 1782 already supports it.

Justice Justice Breyer dissenting

The majority is reading § 1782 too broadly. Companies can take advantage of this holding in order to gain access to a competitor’s proprietary documents simply by filing a complaint in a forrign jurisdiction. This holding will place a significant burden on domestic and foreign courts just to answer the question “what is discoverable?” Limits should also be placed on a district court’s ability to compel discovery. A district court should not compel discovery if the foreign tribunal or the party seeking the documents would not be able to obtain the documents in the foreign jurisdiction, and whether the documents would not be discoverable in an analogous proceeding in America. With these limits, Plaintiff Micro would not be entitled to discovery of the documents.

Discussion.

1. District courts have discretion in this area and are not required to order production, even if they have the authority to do so.
2. Arguments that § 1782 offends foreign tribunals are exaggerated.
3. Just because a foreign tribunal does not allow the production of the documents does not mean it would not be aided by them if required to be produced by an American court.
4. Concerns about equality amongst adversaries can be addressed by the discretion of the district court of the foreign tribunal.
5. The foreign tribunal also has the final say on what it will accept.
6. The court also cannot insert policy concerns into the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
7. It is irrelevant whether the requested documents would be discoverable in an analogous American proceeding.
8. § 1782 was written specifically for application to foreign proceedings and it would be difficult to get a comparable American proceeding than the one being brought in Europe.
9. The district court erred in determining it did not have authority to compel discovery of the requested documents under § 1782.
10. The judgement of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for the district court to use its discretion in determining whether to order production.