INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

Servotronics Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC

Issues

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which authorizes federal district courts to gather evidence “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,” authorize the gathering of evidence for use in a private international arbitration?

The case would have asked the Court to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorizes federal district courts to compel discovery for use in a private international arbitration.  Petitioner Servotronics argued that a tribunal in a private international arbitration is a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of Section 1782(a) and thus that the district court should have ordered discovery. In response, Rolls-Royce and Boeing argued that the language of Section 1782(a) only denotes a tribunal with authority derived from a sovereign, not a contract between private parties. The Court’s decision in this case would have affected the availability and efficiency of discovery in private international arbitrations and specified the extent of acceptable federal court involvement in private international arbitrations.  The U.S. Supreme Court removed this case from its oral argument schedule on September 8, 2021, following Servotronics’ motion to dismiss.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the discretion granted to district courts in 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal” encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 6th Circuits have held, or excludes such tribunals without expressing an exclusionary intent, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th and, in the case below, the 7th Circuit, have held.

Rolls-Royce PLC (“Rolls-Royce”) sold a jet engine to the Boeing Company (“Boeing”), which Boeing intended to use on one of its 787 Dreamliner aircraft. Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC at 690. In January 2016, Boeing tested the aircraft at its facility in South Carolina. During testing, a piece of metal became lodged in an engine valve.

Submit for publication
0

ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd

Issues

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes federal district courts to order discovery “for use in a foreign or international tribunal,” apply to foreign or international private commercial arbitral tribunals?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a private commercial arbitral tribunal is a “foreign or international tribunal” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, a federal law that governs international judicial assistance. International judicial assistance refers to aid provided by one sovereign government to another in judicial proceedings. In ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd, Petitioner ZF Automotive US, Inc. contends that, based on the plain meaning and legislative history of § 1782, it does not apply to private commercial arbitral tribunals located in foreign nations. Respondent Luxshare, Ltd. counters that the dictionary definitions and legal use of the terms “foreign” and “tribunal” show that the statute does apply to private commercial arbitration. In AlixPartners, LLC v. Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States, Petitioner AlixPartners, LLC argues that its arbitral panel does not qualify under § 1782 simply due to the international nature of the parties or the dispute because that does not turn the panel itself into an “international tribunal.” Respondent Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States counters that the arbitral panel does constitute an international tribunal because it is resolving a dispute over whether one country violated its obligations under a treaty. These cases implicate the fair and efficient resolution of arbitral disputes, party autonomy, and international comity.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which permits litigants to invoke the authority of United States courts to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal,” encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 6th Circuits have held, or excludes such tribunals, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th and 7th Circuits have held.

AlixPartners, LLC v. Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States

Whether the phrase “international tribunal” in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 excludes an international arbitral tribunal constituted pursuant to a treaty signed by two sovereign States and charged with the authority to adjudicate with finality whether one of the two sovereigns breached its obligations under the treaty.

ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Maggie Gardner for her guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION