1782 Discovery Blog: U.S. Courts Remain Spilt On Allowing §1782 Discovery For International Arbitration

          The Second Circuit has reinforced the spilt among the circuits whether 28 U.S.C. §1782 may be utilized to obtain evidence for use in private international arbitrations outside the United States.  In Hanwei Guo v. Deutsche Bank Sec., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS...

Bruce Marks Evaluates US Supreme Court Decision on Electors to RIA News

July 8, 2020 Bruce Marks comments the Supreme Court decision where state may require presidential electors to support the winner of its popular vote and may punish or replace those who don’t, settling a disputed issue in advance of this fall’s election. As the Court...

Tom Sullivan participates in the virtual book launch webinar “Obtaining Evidence for Use in International Tribunals under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782”

June 26. 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WtFz6j5_os Transnational discovery is a vitally important part of international litigation. An increasingly important role has been discovery in the United States of information that can be used in international and...

Changes in the Application of Double Taxation Agreements by the Russian Federation

Expected new rules pertaining to taxation at source under Russian bilateral tax treaties could apply as early as January 2021.  There is no information yet as to whether either Russia or the US extended any proposals to each other to amend the existing tax treaty....

Bruce Marks gives interview to RIA News on the suspension of Bolton’s book publication

June 16, 2020 Bruce Marks gives an interview to RIA News on the possibility of suspension of Trumps' ex-adviser, John Bolton, book publication. Justice Department sued Mr. Bolton past week to block the book's release and to demand that copies be retrieved. Officials...

Some advice from victims of voter fraud who won the day

June 11, 2020 By Bruce S. Marks and Mike Roman "El Nuevo Metodo de Votar."  The year was 1993.  Control of the Pennsylvania state Senate turned on a special election in Philadelphia.  Although the district was heavily Democratic, the...

1782 Discovery Blog: California Federal Court Upholds §1782 Discovery For Private Foreign Arbitration Impacting Silicon Valley

In HRC-Hainan Holding Co., LLC v. Yihan Hu, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32125, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020), the United States Court for the Northern District of California, which encompasses Silicon Valley, authorized  Chinese and Delaware registered companies...

1782 Discovery Blog: The Long Arm Of §1782 Discovery Is Used To Reach Documents Outside The U.S.

The Second Circuit in In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019) and the  Eleventh Circuit in Sergeeva v. Tripleton Int'l Ltd., 834 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2016) have held there is no per se bar to the extraterritorial application of 28 U.S.C. §1782 and that it...

COVID-19 Update: Russia Announces New Measure To Support Tenants (Federal law No. 166-FZ dated June 8, 2020)

It is expected that as a result of Russia’s many Covid-19 related restrictions on travel and economic activity, many commercial tenants will be unable to use leased properties to generate income to pay rent, while many landlords will continue to be obligated to make...

1782 Discovery Blog: The Second Circuit Affirms §1782 Discovery May Be Used To Obtain Documents From Outside The U.S.

In In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit held there is no per se bar to the extraterritorial application of 28 U.S.C. §1782 and that it may be used to reach documents located outside of the United States. In the Southern District of New...

GUIDE TO RUSSIAN LAWYERS FOR OBTAINING DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE IN THE U.S. FOR USE IN RUSSIAN LITIGATION

by | May 14, 2020 | 1782 Blog

The U.S. offers a very powerful litigation tool for participants in Russian court proceedings to obtain bank records, documents and witness testimony from sources within the U.S., even if such evidence is unobtainable through Russian court procedures.   This procedure, authorized under 28 U.S.C. §1782, can be a relatively quick and efficient method for obtaining crucial information to win a case.  There is no need to obtain Letters Rogatory or pursue discovery through the Hague Evidence Convention. 

What Information Can Be Obtained?

Documentary and testimonial evidence including:

  • International Wire Transaction Records (U.S. Dollar wires typically transit the U.S.)
  • Emails, Correspondence, Phone and Travel Records
  • Banking, Credit Card and Business Transaction Records
  • Corporate Documents including Shareholder and Board Meeting Records
  • Accounting, Employment and Intellectual Property Records
  • Property and Real Estate Transaction Records
  • Attorney Records (that are not subject to attorney-client privilege)
  • Medical and Educational Records

U.S. Courts Frequently Allow Russian Entities To

Take Discovery For Use In Russia

Numerous Russian entities obtained discovery in the U.S., including for use in Russian commercial disputes, criminal prosecutions and bankruptcy proceedings.  For example:

  • We obtained an order for a Russian diamond company to take discovery from New York banks of wire-transfer and account information regarding various international shell companies alleged to have siphoned funds from an African diamond mining company.  In re ALROSA Request for Ex Parte Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782, 19-Misc.-00184 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2019).
  • A Russian bank was authorized taking discovery in San Francisco for corporate documents, loan documents and deposition testimony, for use in various Russian court proceedings.  In re Joint Stock Co. Raiffeinsenbank, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152090 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016).
  • We obtained an order requiring Renova, Inc., a company controlled by Victor Vekselberg, to produce documents and present a witness for deposition in New York, for use in Russian court proceedings.  In re Kolomoisky, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58591 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2006).
  • The CEO of The Bank of New York was ordered to produce documents and appear for deposition for use in a fraud proceeding before the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court.  In re Imanagement Services, Ltd., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8876 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2006).

The Process For Obtaining Discovery In The U.S. For Use In Russia Is Not Complicated

The United States Supreme Court has stated that the “twin aims” of 28 U.S.C. §1782 discovery is “providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide similar assistance to our courts.”   A Russian litigant can readily utilize this law and the procedures for obtaining U.S. discovery are not complicated.

First, the Russian litigant should determine what information located in the U.S. it wants to obtain – accounting and banking records, emails, corporate resolutions, etc. Then it should be determined what person or entity possesses the and where in the U.S. they are located.  This is important because this determines in which U.S. federal judicial district the discovery should be brought. 

Second, an “Application” is prepared and filed by U.S. counsel with a  federal court typically requesting authorization to issue a subpoena, or subpoenas, for the production of documents or a witness to appear for deposition.  In order for the court to grant the Application, certain statutory considerations must be satisfied.  This may be accomplished by setting forth in the Application that (1) the person from whom discovery is sought resides or can found within the district of the federal court – for example, if wire transfer records are being sought, the proper forum for filing the Application is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York where money center banks are located through which international wires transit; (2) the information is “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal”; and (3) explaining how the discovery sought can be utilized to some advantage or serve some use in the Russian proceeding – there is no requirement for the evidence to be admissible or discoverable in the Russian proceeding.  The court will consider additional discretionary factors, but these can usually can satisfied with a well crafted Application addressing whether the discovery target is a party to the Russian proceedings or subject to the jurisdiction of the Russian court, the nature of the Russian proceedings and/or addressing any relevant Russian and U.S. public policy interests.Third, after the Application is granted, subpoenas are served upon the discovery targets for the production of documents or appearance of witnesses. Typically, notice is given to the opposing party in the Russian litigation.  In some cases, the discovery targets will simply comply with the subpoena and produce documents or appear for deposition.  In other cases, the discovery target may file a motion with the court opposing or seeking to narrow the scope of discovery and/or the opposing party in the Russian litigation may “intervene” and seek to vacate or otherwise oppose the order granting discovery, including seeking a protective order limiting use of the discovery to just the Russian litigation.  The discovery Applicant will be heard in response to any objections and the American court will rule, more often than not, in favor of permitting discovery, in accordance with the “twin aims” of 28 U.S.C. §1782, and require the discovery targets to produce documents or witnesses.

Tom Sullivan - Marks & Sokolov Attorney

If you have any questions or would like more information on this topic, we invite you to contact us. Thomas Sullivan’s practice includes representation of Western and Russian clients in complex international commercial disputes and discovery matters.  He has successfully brought and defended numerous Section 1782 matters throughout the United States.

Marks & Sokolov, LLC
1835 Market Street, 17th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: +1 (215) 569-8901
Mobile: +1 (856) 979-8909
tsullivan@mslegal.com
www.marks-sokolov.com