The Death Knell and the Wild West: Two Dangers of Domestic Discovery in Foreign Adjudications

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), parties to foreign legal proceedings can obtain discovery orders from United States federal courts. In other words, if a foreign party needs physical evidence located in—or testimony from a person residing in—the United States to support their claim or defense, they can ask a district court to order the production of that evidence. For almost two decades, § 1782(a) practice has operated as a procedural Wild West. Judges routinely consider § 1782(a) applications ex parte—that is, without giving the parties subject to the resulting discovery orders a chance to oppose them—and grant those applications at a staggering rate: more than 90% of the time. In its June 2022 decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., the Supreme Court transformed § 1782 jurisprudence for the worse. The Court held that private arbitral tribunals do not fall under § 1782(a)’s scope and that, as a result, parties cannot obtain discovery for use in foreign private arbitration under the provision. This Note argues that, after ZF Automotive, § 1782(a) jurisprudence contains two dangers: (1) it subjects some parties to burdensome discovery orders with few procedural safeguards, and (2) it prevents parties who have chosen to arbitrate rather than litigate from obtaining discovery entirely. This Note contributes to existing scholarship by proposing structural changes that would improve § 1782(a) practice. Specifically, it argues that courts cannot root out the procedural flaws that plague § 1782(a), and that, consequently, Congress should enact a new and improved § 1782 to address these manifold problems.