Gearhart II, William 2/27/2014 For Educational Use Only A !I""A#$ %I&!O'E#$ (O )#O'E %E IA" OF *U&(I!E, +, 'a- *- Int.

l "- 127

2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

53 Va. J. Intl L. 127 Virginia Journal of International Law Symposium 2012 Article ANCILLARY DISC V!RY " #R V! D!NIAL $ J%S"IC! Roger P. Alforda1

Copyright (c) 2012 Virginia Journal of International La A!!ociation" Roger P. Alford

Introduction 12#

I.

International La on $enial of Ju!tice

12%

II.

Ancillary $i!co&ery 'nder (ection 1#)2

1**

A. Ancillary $i!co&ery in Aid of International Ar+itration

1**

,. $i!co&ery (tandard! 'nder (ection 1#)2

1*%

III.

-he Ca!e (tudy of Che&ron &. .cuador

1/2

IV.

I0plication!

1/#

A. -he Co0ity of Court!

1/#

,. A0erican1(tyle $i!co&ery in International Proceeding!

1/%

C. .&identiary 2oru0 (hopping

131

$. - o1Le&el 4a0e! and Altering Incenti&e!

13*

Conclu!ion

133

Introduction -oday foreign in&e!tor! ha&e a ne and po erful eapon to challenge denial of 5u!tice. ,ilateral in&e!t0ent treatie! (,I-!) re6uire 7fair and e6uita+le treat0ent8 con!i!tent ith cu!to0ary international la 9 including 7the o+ligation not to deny 5u!tice in cri0inal9 ci&il9 or ad0ini!trati&e ad5udicatory proceeding! in accordance ith the principle of due proce!! e0+odied in the principal legal !y!te0! of the orld.8 1 -ho!e treatie! al!o *128 create a pri&ate right of action9 e0po ering in&e!tor! ith the right to initiate international ar+itral proceeding! directly again!t the ho!t !tate. -hu!9 ,I-! pro&ide the !u+!tance and the 0ean! for the effecti&e re&ie of 5udicial +eha&ior. -he!e treatie! do not !tand alone. -hey are part of an ela+orate !y!te0 of international !crutiny of national court!. A :ey e0erging co0ponent of thi! !y!te0 i! ancillary di!co&ery to pro&e denial of 5u!tice. Pur!uant to the!e +ilateral in&e!t0ent treatie!9 international tri+unal! !it in 5udg0ent on do0e!tic 5udicial 0i!conduct" and pur!uant to federal la 9 federal court! a!!i!t in the di!co&ery of !uch 0i!conduct. 2ar fro0 deferring to the 5udicial act! of other !o&ereign!9 federal court! are the

hand0aiden of international tri+unal!9 ad5udicating foreign 5udicial 0i!conduct9 and unearthing e&idence that i0po!!i+le to di!co&er other i!e.

ould +e

-he Article proceed! in four part!. Part I re&ie ! international la !tandard! ith re!pect to denial of 5u!tice9 and !ur&ey! the u!e of in&e!t0ent ar+itration to enforce that la . ;hile denial of 5u!tice ha! a long pedigree9 the proliferation of in&e!t0ent ar+itration! pur!uant to ,I-! pro&ide! an effecti&e &ehicle to ad5udicate !uch 0i!conduct. (o&ereign! no &e!t international tri+unal! ith the po er to !it in 5udg0ent on their do0e!tic court!. In Part II9 the article e<plore! the +urgeoning trend of pur!uing ancillary di!co&ery under 2) '.(.C. = 1#)2 to aid international tri+unal!. A! one court put it9 (ection 1#)2 7create! an ancillary re0edy to further the 5u!t re!olution of litigation! and ar+itration! in other fora.82 2ederal court! unifor0ly agree that (ection 1#)2 applie! to in&e!t0ent ar+itration and they routinely order li+eral9 A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery in aid of !uch international proceeding!. Part III pre!ent! the ongoing di!pute +et een Che&ron and .cuador a! a paradig0atic e<a0ple of the u!e of ancillary di!co&ery to pro&e denial of 5u!tice. (ection 1#)2 proceeding! ha&e re!ulted in at lea!t fifty order! and opinion! fro0 federal court! acro!! the country. -he a+ility to re6ue!t ancillary di!co&ery ha! pro&en e!!ential to Che&ron>! denial of 5u!tice clai0!. Che&ron ha! procured &irtually all of the :ey e&idence in !upport of it! allegation! through (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery. 2inally9 Part IV addre!!e! !e&eral i0plication! regarding the u!e of ancillary di!co&ery to pro&e denial of 5u!tice. -he!e conclu!ion! are that? (1) the u!e of (ection 1#)2 in aid of international tri+unal! reflect! !en!iti&ity to the co0ity of court!9 not the co0ity of nation!9 !uch that federal court! deter0ining hether to order ancillary di!co&ery !hould *129 con!ider the international tri+unal>! recepti&ity to !uch a!!i!tance9 +ut not the attitude of the foreign !o&ereign re!ponding to allegation! of international la &iolation!" (2) (ection 1#)2 reflect! a congre!!ional intent to allo intere!ted partie! to a&ail the0!el&e! of li+eral di!co&ery under the 2ederal Rule! of Ci&il Procedure9 re!ulting in the indirect incorporation of A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery into international proceeding!" (*) li+eral di!co&ery pur!uant to (ection 1#)2 pro0ote! e&identiary foru0 !hopping9 encouraging partie! to pur!ue ancillary di!co&ery in the 'nited (tate! rather than rely on the di!co&ery procedure! a&aila+le in international ar+itration" and (/) pro&iding foreign in&e!tor! ith a re0edy for denial of 5u!tice9 together ith a ro+u!t 0ean! to pro&e !uch a &iolation9 alter! the ho!t !tate>! incenti&e! and re6uire! it to play a t o1le&el ga0e that reconcile! international o+ligation! ith do0e!tic political preference!. I. International Law on Denial of Justice Procedural due proce!! i! a funda0ental hu0an right. Article 10 of the 'ni&er!al $eclaration of @u0an Right! pro&ide! that 7AeB&eryone i! entitled in full e6uality to a fair and pu+lic hearing +y an independent and i0partial tri+unal9 in the deter0ination of hi! right! and o+ligation! and of any cri0inal charge! again!t hi0.8 * (i0ilarly9 Article C of the .uropean Con&ention on @u0an Right! pro&ide! that 7AiBn the deter0ination of hi! ci&il right! and o+ligation! or of any cri0inal charge again!t hi09 e&eryone i! entitled to a fair and pu+lic hearing ithin a rea!ona+le ti0e +y an independent and i0partial tri+unal e!ta+li!hed +y la .8/ International la ha! +een particularly concerned ith the treat0ent of foreigner! in do0e!tic 5udicial proceeding!. 4uarantee! of procedural due proce!! for alien! in a foreign land ha&e a long!tanding pedigree. 3 Dne *130 hi!torian riting in 1%*) dated the origin! of denial of 5u!tice +ac: to the thirteenth century a! the legal 5u!tification for act! of repri!al. C ARBepri!al! . . . ca0e to +e a 0ea!ure hich in co0parati&ely early day! ai0ed at enforcing the right of foreigner! to protecti&e 5u!tice9 and A A ereB not per0i!!i+le unle!! there a! a denial of 5u!tice . . . . AABt the pre!ent ti0e denial of 5u!tice doe! not lead to !elf1help on the part of the in5ured party9 and9 a! a rule9 not e&en to repri!al!. It lead! 0erely to a peaceful recla0ation +y the !tate and9 in certain ca!e!9 the di!pute i! !ettled a0ica+ly +y an ar+itral a ard. # A! for it! content9 one ell1:no n hi!torical for0ulation !u00ariEed the international 0ini0u0 !tandard for due proce!!? A-Bhe foreigner !hall en5oy full freedo0 to appear +efore the court! for the protection or defence of hi! right!9 hether a! plaintiff or defendant" to +ring any action pro&ided or authori!ed +y la " to deli&er any pleading +y ay of defence9 !et off or counterclai0" to engage Coun!el" to adduce e&idence9 hether docu0entary or oral or of any other :ind" to apply for +ail" to lodge appeal! and9 in !hort9 to u!e the Court! fully and to a&ail hi0!elf of any procedural re0edie! or guarantee! pro&ided +y the la of the land in order that 5u!tice 0ay +e ad0ini!tered on a footing of e6uality ith national! of the country. )

'nder international la 9 the ter0 of art gi&en for &iolation! of funda0ental due proce!! i! the 7denial of 5u!tice.8 -oday the 0odern concept of denial of 5u!tice i! +road9 enco0pa!!ing +oth out!ide interference in 5udicial proceeding! and 0i!conduct on the part of the 5udiciary it!elf. % -he for0er category enco0pa!!e! i!!ue! !uch a! (1) acce!! to court!" 10 (2) legi!lation targeting foreigner!"11 (*) repudiation of an agree0ent to ar+itrate" 12 (/) go&ern0ental interference in the court!" 1* (3) *131 0anipulation in the co0po!ition of the court!" 1/ (C) e<ce!!i&e pu+lic pre!!ure" 13 and (#) failure to e<ecute 5udg0ent!. 1C -he latter include! i!!ue! !uch a! (1) a refu!al to 5udge" 1# (2) undue delay"1) (*) illegiti0ate a!!ertion of 5uri!diction" 1% (/) due proce!! &iolation!"20 (3) di!cri0ination or pre5udice"21 (C) corruption"22 (#) ar+itrarine!!"2* ()) retroacti&e application of la !"2/ and (%) +ad faith and gro!! inco0petence.23 In addition to the cu!to0ary international la !tandard for denial of 5u!tice9 0any ,I-! ha&e adopted a le< !peciali! that guarantee! greater in&e!tor protection! for procedural due proce!!. 2C 2or e<a0ple9 the 'nited (tate!1.cuador ,I- pro&ide! in Article II(#) that 7AeBach Party !hall pro&ide effecti&e 0ean! of a!!erting clai0! and enforcing right! ith re!pect to in&e!t0ent9 in&e!t0ent agree0ent!9 and in&e!t0ent authoriEation!.8 2# -hat pro&i!ion9 hich al!o appear! in the .nergy Charter2) and !e&eral other '.(. ,I-!9 i! a 7di!tinct and potentially le!!1de0anding te!t . . . a! co0pared to denial of 5u!tice under cu!to0ary international la .82% ;hile denial of 5u!tice under cu!to0ary international la re6uire! 7egregiou! conduct that F!hoc:!9 or at lea!t !urpri!e!9 a !en!e of 5udicial propriety98 thi! le!!er !tandard re6uire! a 0ere 7failure of do0e!tic court! to enforce right! Feffecti&ely.8>*0 'ntil recent decade!9 the denial of 5u!tice a! fre6uently a rong ithout a re0edy. *1 2oreign in&e!tor! aggrie&ed at their treat0ent in *132 do0e!tic proceeding! had fe choice! to redre!! their plight. ,y the early 20 th century9 repri!al! and !elf1 help ere off the ta+le9 and the only other &ia+le option11the diplo0atic e!pou!al of clai0! pur!uant to a friend!hip9 co00erce9 and na&igation treaty (2CG) or !i0ilar treatie!11 ere cu0+er!o0e and rare e&ent!. -he !e0inal de&elop0ent that altered thi! cour!e of e&ent! a! the ri!e of +ilateral in&e!t0ent treatie!. -he!e ,I-! incorporated guarantee! of 0ini0u0 due proce!! and afforded in&e!tor! the right to ar+itrate denial of 5u!tice clai0! directly again!t the ho!t !tate +efore i0partial and independent international tri+unal!. At the end of the Cold ;ar there ere fe er than /00 +ilateral in&e!t0ent treatie!.*2 -oday al0o!t 1)0 countrie! ha&e entered into o&er 29C00 ,I-!. ** Pur!uant to the!e treatie!9 nation! are no under an international legal o+ligation to guarantee foreign in&e!tor! a 0ini0u0 !tandard of due proce!! in do0e!tic court 5udicial proceeding!9 and !o&ereign! authoriEe international tri+unal! to e<a0ine and re0edy in!tance! that fall +elo that !tandard. -he po!ture of the!e international tri+unal! i! in 0ar:ed contra!t to the deference and coordination that occur! +et een do0e!tic court!9 here there are ell1de&eloped principle! for addre!!ing the allocation of 5udicial authority +et een !o&ereign !tate!.*/ -he !o&ereign e6uality of !tate! i! a central feature of that allocation. A0ong the guideline! for allocating 5udicial authority i! the long!tanding principle that AeB&ery !o&ereign !tate i! +ound to re!pect the independence of e&ery other !o&ereign !tate9 and the court! of one country ill not !it in 5udg0ent on the act! of the go&ern0ent of another done ithin it! o n territory. Redre!! of grie&ance! +y rea!on of !uch act! 0u!t +e o+tained through the 0ean! to +e a&ailed of +y !o&ereign po er! a! +et een the0!el&e!. *3 Go 9 ith the for0ation of international tri+unal!9 !o&ereign !tate! ha&e e!ta+li!hed an effecti&e 0ean! to redre!! grie&ance! ari!ing fro0 go&ern0ent 0i!conduct? e0po ering the!e international tri+unal! to !it in 5udg0ent on the act! of go&ern0ent9 including act! of the 5udiciary. 4i&en *133 the efficacy of thi! na!cent !y!te09 it i! not !urpri!ing that denial of 5u!tice clai0! are on the ri!e.*C II. Ancillary Disco ery !nder "ection 1#82 -he deci!ion to launch an in&e!t0ent ar+itration again!t a ho!t !tate trigger! a !erie! of procedural eapon! to di!co&er the +readth and depth of an alleged international la &iolation. Dne of the 0o!t i0portant of the!e i! found in 2) '.(.C. = 1#)29 hich e0po er! federal court! to order any per!on ithin it! 5uri!diction to +e depo!ed or produce docu0ent! upon the re6ue!t of any intere!ted per!on. (ection 1#)2 pro&ide! in rele&ant part? -he di!trict court of the di!trict in hich a per!on re!ide! or i! found 0ay order hi0 to gi&e hi! te!ti0ony or !tate0ent or to produce a docu0ent or other thing for u!e in a proceeding in a foreign or international tri+unal9 including cri0inal in&e!tigation! conducted +efore for0al accu!ation. -he order 0ay +e 0ade

pur!uant to a letter rogatory i!!ued9 or re6ue!t 0ade9 +y a foreign or international tri+unal or upon the application of any intere!ted per!on and 0ay direct that the te!ti0ony or !tate0ent +e gi&en9 or the docu0ent or other thing +e produced9 +efore a per!on appointed +y the court.*# -hi! procedural de&ice ha! only recently +een applied in the international ar+itration conte<t9 +ut it! i0pact ha! +een i0pre!!i&e. In one land0ar: ca!e in&ol&ing allegation! of 5udicial i0propriety9 a !erie! of (ection 1#)2 order! ere critical to +ol!ter allegation! of a ide!pread con!piracy to co00it fraud in !ecuring an H1) +illion .cuadorian court 5udg0ent again!t a '.(. corporation. A. Ancillary Disco ery in Aid of International Ar$itration ,efore 200/ it a! idely a!!u0ed that (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery order! ere una&aila+le in aid of international ar+itration. *) -he t o federal circuit! that addre!!ed the i!!ue +oth found that an international ar+itral panel e!ta+li!hed +y pri&ate partie! a! not an 7international tri+unal8 ithin the 0eaning of the !tatute. In G,C &. ,ear (tearn!9 the (econd Circuit held that (ection 1#)2 a! 7intended to co&er go&ern0ental or *13% intergo&ern0ental ar+itral tri+unal! and con&entional court! and other !tate1!pon!ored ad5udicatory +odie!8 and that 7Congre!! did not intend for that !tatute to apply to an ar+itral +ody e!ta+li!hed +y pri&ate partie!.8 *% Li:e i!e9 in Repu+lic of IaEa:h!tan &. ,ieder0ann International9 the 2ifth Circuit concluded that 7the ter0 Fforeign and international tri+unal!> in = 1#)2 a! not intended to authoriEe re!ort to 'nited (tate! federal court! to a!!i!t di!co&ery in pri&ate international ar+itration!. -he pro&i!ion a! enlarged to further co0ity a0ong nation!9 not to co0plicate and under0ine the !alutary de&ice of pri&ate international ar+itration.8 /0 -hat changed in 200/ hen the (upre0e Court9 in Intel Corp. &. Ad&anced Jicro $e&ice!9 Inc.9 addre!!ed the !cope of (ection 1#)2 for the fir!t ti0e./1 -he critical 6ue!tion in Intel a! hether antitru!t proceeding! +efore the .uropean Co00i!!ion11the e<ecuti&e and ad0ini!trati&e organ of the .uropean Co00unitie!11con!tituted a 7proceeding in a foreign or international tri+unal8 ithin the 0eaning of the !tatute. 4i&en that the .uropean Co00i!!ion co0+ined +oth pro!ecutorial and ad5udicatory function!9 the (upre0e Court concluded that it had 7no arrant to e<clude the .uropean Co00i!!ion9 to the e<tent that it act! a! a fir!t1in!tance deci!ion10a:er9 fro0 = 1#)2(a)>! a0+it.8/2 It further held that a pending9 rather than actual proceeding a! !ufficient to trigger (ection 1#)29 a! long a! 7a di!po!iti&e ruling +y the Co00i!!ion9 re&ie a+le +y the .uropean court!9 A a!B ithin rea!ona+le conte0plation.8/* Although the (upre0e Court did not addre!! international ar+itration directly9 it! rea!oning appeared to !upport a +road interpretation that ould enco0pa!! ar+itral tri+unal!9 hich li:e i!e act a! 7fir!t1in!tance deci!ion10a:er!8 that render 7di!po!iti&e ruling!8 !u+5ect to li0ited national court re&ie . Joreo&er9 in de!cri+ing the !cope of (ection 1#)29 the Court found that Congre!! a0ended the !tatute in 1%C/ to 7pro&ide the po!!i+ility of '.(. 5udicial a!!i!tance in connection ith ad0ini!trati&e and 6ua!i15udicial proceeding! a+road8 and 6uoted !cholarly co00entary that defined the ter0 7tri+unal8 to include 7in&e!tigating 0agi!trate!9 ad0ini!trati&e and ar+itral tri+unal!9 and 6ua!i15udicial agencie!9 a! ell a! con&entional ci&il9 co00ercial9 cri0inal9 and ad0ini!trati&e court!.8// -he Court concluded ith cautionary con!ideration! that a federal court !hould e<erci!e hen ordering (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery" ith particular focu! on the !u+5ect9 0oti&e9 nature9 and conte<t of the di!co&ery re6ue!t. (pecifically9 the Court encouraged lo er court! to con!ider? (1) hether *13& the per!on fro0 ho0 di!co&ery i! !ought i! a participant in the foreign or international proceeding" (2) hether the nature and character of the foreign tri+unal ould 0a:e 5udicial a!!i!tance appropriate" (*) hether the foreign or international court i! recepti&e to federal court 5udicial a!!i!tance" (/) hether the di!co&ery re6ue!t conceal! an atte0pt to circu0&ent foreign proof1gathering re!triction! or other legiti0ate policie!" and (3) hether the re6ue!t i! unduly intru!i&e or +urden!o0e. /3 In the a:e of Intel9 federal court! ha&e !truggled to apply the Court>! li+eral (ection 1#)2 !tandard! to the conte<t of international ar+itration. Lo er court! are di&ided on the 6ue!tion of hether a contract1+a!ed pri&ate international ar+itral panel !ati!fie! the !tatutory definition of 7international tri+unal.8 /C A 0a5ority of court! ha&e concluded that ar+itral tri+unal! e!ta+li!hed +y pri&ate contract are 7foreign or international tri+unal!.8/# -he .le&enth Circuit9 for e<a0ple9 too: Intel>! functional approach and concluded that a contractually1+a!ed 7ar+itral panel i! . . . Fa fir!t1in!tance deci!ion10a:er> ho!e 5udg0ent i! !u+5ect to 5udicial re&ie 9 and e therefore Fha&e no arrant to e<clude AitB . . . fro0 = 1#)2(a)>! a0+it.8>/) 'nder thi! analy!i!9 the functional approach adopted +y the (upre0e

Court in Intel !ugge!t! that contract1+a!ed ar+itral tri+unal! are fir!t1in!tance deci!ion10a:er! that i!!ue deci!ion! +oth re!pon!i&e to the co0plaint and re&ie a+le in court. /% 7AIBt i! the function of the +ody that 0a:e! it a Ftri+unal9> not it! for0al identity a! a Fgo&ern0ental> or Fpri&ate> in!titution.830 Dther federal di!trict court! ha&e concluded that pri&ate ar+itral tri+unal! are not 7international tri+unal!8 ithin the 0eaning of (ection 1#)2.31 -he!e court! focu! on ar+itration a! an alternati&e to litigation9 *13' foreclo!ing a :ey ele0ent of Intel>! analy!i!? 5udicial re&ie .32 7A-Bhe &ery narro circu0!tance! in hich Aar+itralB deci!ion! 0ay +e !u+5ect to re&ie doe! not allo for 5udicial re&ie of the 0erit! of the partie!> di!pute. Accordingly9 the Far+itral tri+unal> at i!!ue here doe! not fall ithin the definition the (upre0e Court e0+raced in it! Intel dictu0.8 3* Joreo&er9 the fact that the !ource of 5udicial authority i! deri&ed fro0 pri&ate agree0ent li:e i!e 70ilitateA!B again!t cla!!ifying it a! a foreign or international proceeding under = 1#)2.83/ 2inally9 prag0atic concern! ha&e loo0ed large in the analy!i!. 7Interpreting = 1#)2 to apply to &oluntary9 pri&ate international ar+itration! ould +e a +ody +lo to !uch ar+itration9 !ince it ould create a tre0endou! di!incenti&e to engage in !uch ar+itration here&er9 a! here9 !uch a reading ould create !u+!tantially a!y00etrical di!co&ery o+ligation!.8 33 ;hate&er dou+t! there 0ay +e a+out the application of (ection 1#)2 to contract1+a!ed international ar+itration9 federal court! unifor0ly agree that an ar+itral tri+unal e!ta+li!hed pur!uant to a +ilateral in&e!t0ent treaty con!titute! an 7international tri+unal8 ithin the 0eaning of the !tatute. -he focu! of 0o!t (ection 1#)2 litigation in the ,I- conte<t ha! not +een on hether the !tatutory criteria ha&e +een !ati!fied9 +ut hether the di!cretionary con!ideration! outlined in Intel 0ilitate in fa&or or again!t granting di!co&ery. (ince Intel9 o&er t enty federal court! ha&e con!idered 0otion! to co0pel (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery in aid of proceeding! +efore treaty1+a!ed in&e!t0ent ar+itration tri+unal!. 3C Got a !ingle federal court ha! held that *13# !uch ar+itral tri+unal! fall !hort of the !tatutory definition of an 7international tri+unal.83# -he &a!t 0a5ority of the!e ca!e! aro!e in the conte<t of Che&ron>! in&e!t0ent ar+itration clai0 filed in (epte0+er 2*9 200%9 again!t the Repu+lic of .cuador alleging that 5udicial proceeding! in .cuador &iolate the .cuador1'nited (tate! ,ilateral In&e!t0ent -reaty.3) A! noted a+o&e9 that treaty guarantee! funda0ental due proce!!9 including the 7effecti&e 0ean! of a!!erting clai0! and enforcing right! ith re!pect to in&e!t0ent9 in&e!t0ent agree0ent!9 and in&e!t0ent authoriEation!.8 3% It al!o authoriEe! in&e!tor! to file an ar+itration clai0 in accordance ith the 'GCI-RAL Ar+itration Rule!. C0 -hu!9 the ar+itration proceeding i! e!ta+li!hed +y treaty9 ith .cuador con!enting in ad&ance to +e !u+5ect to in&e!t0ent ar+itration and the 'nited (tate! !ecuring for it! national!9 including Che&ron9 third1party +eneficiary right! to pur!ue international la clai0! again!t .cuador. Rather than ta:e a functional approach that analyEe! hether the in&e!t0ent tri+unal i! a fir!t1in!tance deci!ion10a:er rendering deci!ion! !u+5ect to 5udicial re&ie 9 the!e court! either a!!u0e that !uch ar+itral panel! are 7international tri+unal!98 or focu! on the fact that the ar+itral tri+unal ha! it! origin! in a +ilateral in&e!t0ent treaty. Although the *138 a+!ence of 5udicial re&ie in the in&e!t0ent conte<t i! e&en 0ore pronounced than in pri&ate co00ercial ar+itration9 thi! factor ha! not +een featured in any of the deci!ion! applying (ection 1#)2 to in&e!t0ent ar+itration. In !hort9 federal court! ta:e a functional approach in defining an 7international tri+unal8 in the co00ercial ar+itration conte<t9 and a for0ali!t approach in the in&e!t0ent ar+itration conte<t. In the in&e!t0ent ar+itration conte<t9 the locu! of di!cu!!ion ha! +een on the Intel di!cretionary factor!. -he 6ue!tion i! not hether (ection 1#)2 authoriEe! federal court! to aid in&e!t0ent ar+itration9 +ut rather9 hether they !hould in light of Intel. -he e<erci!e of di!cretion i! particularly i0portant in the denial of 5u!tice conte<t9 +ecau!e any deci!ion to grant (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery ill i0pact do0e!tic court proceeding! and international ar+itration proceeding!. Intel re6uire! federal court! to !crutiniEe9 a0ong other thing!9 the nature and character of the foreign or international proceeding!9 the foreign or international court>! recepti&ity to the di!co&ery9 and hether the di!co&ery ill circu0&ent re!triction! i0po!ed +y the foreign or international court.C1 Dne cannot +alance tho!e factor! ithout con!idering hether (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery ill +e u!ed in aid of the do0e!tic court proceeding!9 the international ar+itral proceeding!9 or +oth. 2or e<a0ple9 in ',R9 the -hird Circuit addre!!ed the propriety of a (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery re6ue!t de!igned to attac: the credi+ility of the .cuadorian court !y!te09 ith Che&ron alleging that .cuadorian plaintiff! and their e<pert! con!pired ith the .cuadorian court to produce a fraudulent a!!e!!0ent of en&iron0ental da0age. C2 Appellant! ',R argued that Che&ron did not !ee: di!co&ery for 7u!e in a proceeding +efore a foreign tri+unal98 +ut rather 7to attac: the tri+unal it!elf.8 C* -he -hird Circuit re5ected the argu0ent9 finding that the e&idence Che&ron !ee:! ould +e u!ed in the ,I- ar+itration to attac: the .cuadorian court9 and thi! 7un6ue!tiona+ly ould +e Ffor a u!e in a foreign or international tri+unal.> -he fact that the

e&idence 0ay +e utiliEed to ca!t dou+t! on the i0partiality of the Lago Agrio Court doe! not 0ean that Che&ron>! re6ue!t for the e&idence run! afoul of (ection 1#)2 and that therefore Che&ron 0ay not o+tain the e&idence.8C/ A! for the Intel di!cretionary factor!9 the 6ue!tion in ',R a! not hether the .cuadorian court ould +e recepti&e to di!co&ery e!ta+li!hing that it! 5udg0ent a! procured +y fraud9 +ut rather hether the ,I- ar+itral panel ould +e recepti&e to !uch e&idence. Any !ugge!tion that *139 7the ,I- ar+itral panel ould not +e recepti&e to the e&idence98 the -hird Circuit concluded9 a! +a!ed on 7pure !peculation.8C3 Li:e i!e9 in ,erlinger9 the (outhern $i!trict of Ge Kor: re5ected argu0ent! that (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery ould under0ine the .cuadorian court and therefore fru!trate the co0ity intere!t! underlying the !tatute. CC -he fact that the .cuadorian court! 0ight not +e recepti&e to e&idence of fraud to +e u!ed in international ar+itration a! of little con!e6uence. 4i&en that the 7petitioner! !ee: relief . . . out of concern that political influence 0ay ha&e +een +rought to +ear in .cuador in an inappropriate ay98 oppo!ition +y the .cuadorian court! 7to the!e application! ould not +e di!po!iti&e.8 C# In other ord!9 the filing of an international ar+itration challenging the ad0ini!tration of 5u!tice in a foreign court dra0atically alter! the e<erci!e of Intel di!cretion. ;hile the foreign court 0ay not +e recepti&e to di!co&ery of 5udicial 0i!conduct9 !uch e&idence ill further ar+itration proceeding! ad5udicating !uch 6ue!tion!. A! the (outhern $i!trict of Ge Kor: rea!oned in $onEiger9 7e&en if the .cuadorian court! oppo!ed the!e !u+poena! . . . !uch oppo!ition ould not +e di!po!iti&e . . . . A(Bight 0u!t not +e lo!t of the role of the di!co&ery !ought here in re!pect of the ,I- ar+itration. Certainly thi! di!co&ery ould +e helpful to that tri+unal.8C) (. Disco ery "tandards !nder "ection 1#82 Dne of the 0o!t po erful eapon! that a party can ield again!t it! litigation ad&er!ary i! A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery. A! one ci&il la practitioner put it9 7AiBt i! difficult to o&er!tate the horror ith hich partie! and coun!el out!ide the 'nited (tate! &ie the pro!pect of A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery9 ith partie! a+le to !er&e upon one another ! eeping re6ue!t! for production of docu0ent! and other infor0ation rele&ant to the litigation9 and to o+tain oral depo!ition te!ti0ony of itne!!e! in ad&ance of trial.8C% Ket thi! i! preci!ely hat (ection 1#)2 doe! in aid of international ar+itration. Dnce a federal court ha! deter0ined that di!co&ery i! authoriEed and appropriate under (ection 1#)29 the federal !tandard! for di!co&era+ility are triggered. (ection 1#)2 gi&e! federal court! +road lee ay in fa!hioning the !cope of di!co&ery9 authoriEing court! to 7pre!cri+e the practice and *1%0 procedure9 hich 0ay +e in hole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign country or the international tri+unal9 for ta:ing the te!ti0ony or !tate0ent or producing the docu0ent or other thing.8#0 ,ut in the a+!ence of !uch an order9 the default rule i! that 7the te!ti0ony or !tate0ent !hall +e ta:en9 and the docu0ent or other thing produced9 in accordance ith the 2ederal Rule! of Ci&il Procedure.8 #1 A! the legi!lati&e hi!tory e0pha!iEed? A(Bection 1#)2 gi&e! the court co0plete di!cretion in pre!cri+ing the procedure to +e follo ed. It per0it!9 +ut doe! not co00and9 follo ing the foreign or international practice. If the court fail! to pre!cri+e the procedure9 the appropriate pro&i!ion! of the 2ederal Rule! of Ci&il Procedure are to +e follo ed9 irre!pecti&e of hether the foreign or international proceeding or in&e!tigation i! of a cri0inal9 ci&il9 ad0ini!trati&e9 or other nature.#2 In practice9 court! ha&e applied thi! default rule9 per0itting partie! to di!co&er 7any non1pri&ileged 0atter that i! rele&ant to any party>! clai0 or defen!e.8 #* -he ra0ification! for applying the 2ederal Rule! of Ci&il Procedure to (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery are profound9 dra0atically e<panding the !cope of di!co&era+le e&idence. 2ir!t9 rele&ant infor0ation under 2ederal Rule of Ci&il Procedure 2C(+)(1) 7need not +e ad0i!!i+le at the trial if the di!co&ery appear! rea!ona+ly calculated to lead to the di!co&ery of ad0i!!i+le e&idence.8 #/ -hat !a0e li+eral !tandard of rele&ance applie! to (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery.#3 Any dou+t a! to hether the e&idence i! rele&ant !hould +e re!ol&ed in fa&or of di!co&ery.#C -hi! i! particularly !o in the (ection 1#)2 conte<t9 here a di!trict court>! only connection to the ca!e i! !uper&i!ion of di!co&ery ancillary to an action el!e here9 in hich ca!e the court *1%1 7!hould +e e!pecially he!itant to pa!! 5udg0ent on hat con!titute! rele&ant e&idence.8## (econd9 (ection 1#)2 authoriEe! a federal di!trict court to order depo!ition! or docu0entary e&idence again!t any indi&idual ho 7re!ide! or i! found8 in the di!trict9 including third partie! ho are not na0ed partie! in the foreign proceeding. In one

ca!e9 the (econd Circuit affir0ed a di!trict court i!!uance of a (ection 1#)2 order in aid of 2rench litigation again!t a third party ho li&ed and or:ed in 2rance9 +ut a! 7found8 in Ge Kor:11 &i!iting an art gallery. #) In another ca!e9 di!co&ery a! dee0ed appropriate +a!ed on the e<pectation that the indi&idual ould +e found in the di!trict in the near future. #% -hird9 (ection 1#)2 authoriEe! a federal di!trict court to order di!co&ery in aid of international proceeding! again!t any third party9 regardle!! of ho attenuated the relation!hip of that party to the litigant!. In one ca!e9 4oogle a! ordered to produce docu0ent! relating to e0ail account! it ho!ted that ere opened and held +y foreign national! in&ol&ed in foreign proceeding!.)0 2ourth9 (ection 1#)2 authoriEe! a federal di!trict court to order di!co&ery in aid of international proceeding! 7upon the application of any intere!ted party.8)1 -here i! no re6uire0ent that the party re6ue!ting federal court di!co&ery +e a litigant in the foreign or international proceeding!. A! the (upre0e Court e0pha!iEed9 any per!on ho 7po!!e!!e! a rea!ona+le intere!t in o+taining 5udicial a!!i!tance . . . 6ualifie! a! an intere!ted per!on8 under (ection 1#)2.)2 -hi! !tandard of di!co&ery i! re0ar:a+ly different fro0 the approach of e&idence gathering in international ar+itration. $i!co&ery in the international ar+itration conte<t i! a hy+rid of ci&il and co00on la tradition!. -he ci&il la tradition9 of cour!e9 e0ploy! the in6ui!itorial 0odel9 ith di!co&ery controlled +y the court! and the partie! ha&ing no po er to de0and rele&ant 0aterial! fro0 one another9 0uch le!! third partie!. -he e&idence that i! gathered +y ci&il la court! i! often that hich the partie! &oluntarily proffer. Interrogatorie!9 depo!ition!9 and ad&er!e docu0ent production are alien concept!. )* *1%2 Jodern international ar+itration practice co0+ine! ele0ent! of +oth co00on la and ci&il la tradition!. A! far a! oral e&idence9 the ci&il la tradition do0inate!" depo!ition! are rare9 and itne!! !tate0ent! are the nor0. )/ Interrogatorie! are !i0ilarly unco00on. Dn the other hand9 docu0ent production in international ar+itration roughly parallel! the co00on la approach9 +ut the !tandard for hat i! di!co&era+le i! 0uch narro er. ;hile there i! no auto0atic right to de0and docu0ent! of the oppo!ing !ide9 a party 0ay re6ue!t the ar+itral tri+unal to order another party to produce 7a narro and !pecific re6ue!ted category of docu0ent!.8)3 -ypically the tri+unal ill grant !uch re6ue!t if it deter0ine! that the docu0ent! 7are rele&ant to the ca!e and 0aterial to it! outco0e.8)C A party !u+5ect to !uch a production re6ue!t 0ay o+5ect to production if9 a0ong other thing!9 the re6ue!t i! not !ufficiently rele&ant9 unrea!ona+ly +urden!o0e9 there are applica+le pri&ilege!9 or co0pelling rea!on! of fairne!! and e6uality again!t di!clo!ure. )# -he tradition in international ar+itration i! to 7refu!e e<pan!i&e9 fi!hing1e<pedition di!co&ery re6ue!t!.8)) Joreo&er9 a! a general rule international ar+itral tri+unal! ha&e no authority to re6ue!t docu0ent! or oral te!ti0ony for third partie!9 and therefore a party>! a+ility to procure e&idence fro0 third partie! ill +e li0ited accordingly. 4i&en the!e li0itation!9 it i! not !urpri!ing that ancillary di!co&ery under (ection 1#)2 i! an attracti&e tool for A0erican la yer! gathering e&idence to pro&e denial of 5u!tice. Gor i! it !urpri!ing that la yer! fro0 other tradition! &ie thi! trend ith !:eptici!0. III. )*e +ase "tudy of +*e ron . ,cuador -he 0o!t i0portant e<a0ple of ancillary di!co&ery to pro&e denial of 5u!tice i! Che&ron &. .cuador. -he di!pute pre!ent! a ca!e !tudy of 5u!t ho !ignificant (ection 1#)2 proceeding! 0ay +e for international tri+unal! addre!!ing allegation! of foreign 5udicial 0i!conduct. -he !e0inal e&ent that precipitated Che&ron>! allegation! of denial of 5u!tice in .cuador a! the January 200% !creening of the fil0 Crude at the (undance 2il0 2e!ti&al in Par: City9 'tah. -he fil0 docu0ented the ca!e *1%3 of indigenou! .cuadorian plaintiff! in a $a&id &!. 4oliath +attle again!t Che&ron o&er alleged en&iron0ental da0age in .cuador. (cene! in the fil0 depicted an e< parte 0eeting +et een plaintiff!> la yer! and a 0edical e<pert or:ing ith the .cuadorian court1 appointed (pecial Ja!ter9 plaintiff la yer (te&en $onEiger !tor0ing into an .cuadorian 5udge>! cha0+er!9 and $onEiger declaring that you had to play dirty ith litigation in .cuador. )% If !uch conduct 0ade the final cut of the fil09 Che&ron la yer! 6ueried hat e&idence re0ained on the cutting roo0 floor. Dn the +a!i! of the!e and !i0ilar !cene!9 Che&ron filed a (ection 1#)2 0otion in the (outhern $i!trict of Ge Kor: again!t Crude director Joe ,erlinger" re6ue!ting o&er !i< hundred hour! of fil0 outta:e!. -he di!trict court granted the 0otion9 finding that 7ArBe&ie of ,erlinger>! outta:e! ill contri+ute to the goal of !eeing not only that 5u!tice i! done9 +ut that it appear! to +e done.8%0

Che&ron then filed o&er t enty1three 0otion! for (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery again!t &ariou! third1party itne!!e! ith :no ledge of pertinent fact! pertaining to the .cuadorian litigation. -he!e proceeding! 7ha&e re!ulted in at lea!t fifty order! and opinion! fro0 federal court! acro!! the country.8%1 -he !heer e<tent of !uch (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery a!9 a! the -hird Circuit put it9 7uni6ue in the annal! of A0erican 5udicial hi!tory.8 %2 In e&ery !ingle ca!e federal di!trict court! granted in hole or in part Che&ron>! 0otion! for ancillary di!co&ery. -he re!ult! of the ancillary di!co&ery order! allo ed Che&ron to pre!ent hat it de!cri+ed a! 7!hoc:ing re&elation!8 of fraud and corruption.%* A0ong the direct 6uote! attri+uta+le to the .cuador plaintiff la yer! ere? (1) 7All the 5udge! Ain .cuadorB are corrupt"8 (2) 7the only language . . . thi! 5udge i! gonna under!tand i! one of pre!!ure9 inti0idation9 and hu0iliation"8 (*) 7AInB .cuador . . . thi! i! ho the ga0e i! played9 it>! dirty"8 (/) 7A-he court1appointed (pecial Ja!ter ill ha&eB to totally play +all ith u! and let u! ta:e the lead hile pro5ecting the i0age that he i! or:ing for the court"8 (3) 7AABll thi! +ullLLLt a+out the la and fact! . . . in the end of the day it i! a+out +rute force"8 (C) 7A;eB could 5ac: thi! thing up to thirty +illion . . . in one day"8 (#) 7A.&idence of ground ater conta0inationB a! !0o:e and 0irror! and +ullLLLt9 it really i!"8 and ()) 7AIBf you repeat a lie a thou!and ti0e! it +eco0e! the truth.8%/ *1%% -he outta:e! and other e&idence gathered pur!uant to (ection 1#)2 ere9 according to the (outhern $i!trict of Ge Kor:9 7re0ar:a+ly infor0ati&e8 a+out the entire Lago Agrio litigation9 pro&iding 7a0ple e&idence of fraud in the .cuadorian proceeding!.8%3 According to that court9 the e&idence gathered pur!uant to ancillary di!co&ery e!ta+li!hed9 a0ong other thing!? (1) that the appoint0ent and independence of the .cuadorian1court (pecial Ja!ter a! irregular" (2) that the plaintiff! 7gho!t1 rote8 the (pecial Ja!ter>! e<pert report" and (*) that the plaintiff! 7orche!trated a ca0paign to inti0idate the .cuadorian 5udiciary.8%C Another federal court found that the H1) +illion Lago Agrio 5udg0ent a! a 7&irtual line1+y1line entry8 of an internal plaintiff docu0ent !urreptitiou!ly pro&ided to the court +ut not placed in the record. %# Dther federal court! 0ade !i0ilar finding! of fraud.%) ;hen depo!ed9 (te&en $onEinger ad0itted under oath that plaintiff!> e<pert con!ultant9 (tratu! Con!ulting9 rote part! of the (pecial Ja!ter>! e<pert report hich the e<pert adopted &er+ati0. %% Internal *1%& corre!pondence +et een .cuadorian plaintiff!> coun!el conceded that the e&idence 7under0ined the entire ca!e and the credi+ility of the entire plaintiff>! tea08 100 and arned that pu+lic di!clo!ure of their conduct could 7de!troyAB the proceeding!8 and re!ult in 7all of u!9 your attorney!9 . . . goAingB to 5ail.8101 $e!pite thi! e&idence9 .cuador ha! &igorou!ly denied allegation! of 5udicial 0i!conduct and relied on ancillary di!co&ery in the 'nited (tate! to re+ut Che&ron>! clai0! of fraud and corruption. (ince (epte0+er 20109 .cuador ha! filed at lea!t fourteen !eparate (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery re6ue!t! again!t third partie! ho ha&e infor0ation rele&ant to Che&ron>! allegation!.102 In particular9 .cuador !ought docu0ent! and depo!ition! again!t ad&er!e itne!!e! ho are li:ely to te!tify again!t .cuador in the international ar+itration proceeding. -he approach reflect! .cuador>! deci!ion to 7ta:e aggre!!i&e di!co&ery of Che&ron and other per!on! and entitie! ithin the 'nited (tate! for purpo!e! of anticipating and countering Che&ron>! ongoing atte0pt! to under0ine and e&ade the .cuadorian 5udg0ent.810* Che&ron re!ponded to .cuador>! re6ue!t for ancillary di!co&ery +y de0anding 7reciprocal di!co&ery8 fro0 .cuador9 relying on (ection 1#)2 a! a tool for direct A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery of it! !o&ereign ad&er!ary in the international proceeding. 10/ -hu! far9 tho!e re6ue!t! ha&e +een denied9 ith a federal court finding that the e&idence a! located a+road9 that the international tri+unal could i!!ue !uch an order9 and that .cuador had potential !o&ereign i00unity defen!e!. 103 7-he Court re5ect! Che&ron>! atte0pt to !hoehorn ide1ranging di!co&ery again!t partie! to a foreign proceeding under the gui!e of Freciprocal di!co&ery> +ecau!e it could *1%' circu0&ent AtheB !tatutory !che0e under = 1#)2 e!ta+li!hed +y Congre!!.810C Regardle!! of the ulti0ate outco0e of Che&ron &. .cuador9 the a+ility to re6ue!t ancillary di!co&ery ha! pro&en e!!ential to Che&ron>! denial of 5u!tice clai0!. (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery a! the &ehicle for di!co&ering &irtually all of the :ey e&idence in !upport of it! clai0!. -hi! e&idence ould ha&e +een difficult9 perhap! i0po!!i+le9 to procure through the di!co&ery procedure! in place in international ar+itration. -he di!co&ery a! !ought fro0 third partie! to the ar+itral proceeding. $epo!ition! of ad&er!e itne!!e! ere routinely re6ue!ted and granted. Clai0! of pri&ilege ere fre6uently denied9 including clai0! of attorney1client pri&ilege9 attorney or: product9 and 5ournali!t pri&ilege. 10# -he !cope of docu0entary e&idence a! &olu0inou!9 far in e<ce!! of the 7narro and !pecific re6ue!ted category of docu0ent!8 per0itted under the e&identiary !tandard! of international ar+itration.10) Pur!uant to one order alone9 (te&en $onEiger handed o&er 2009000 page! of 0aterial to Che&ron9 !panning al0o!t t o decade!.10% Che&ron>! depo!ition of $onEiger la!ted eight day! and produced a 29/00 page tran!cript.110 Go re!pondent ha! dared to refu!e co0pliance ith di!co&ery order!9 +ecau!e to do !o ri!:ed +eing found in

conte0pt of court.111 -hu! far9 ancillary di!co&ery i! ha&ing it! intended effect in Che&ron &. .cuadorF! international proceeding!. Dn 2e+ruary %9 20119 the international tri+unal ad5udicating Che&ron>! denial of 5u!tice clai0 concluded that Che&ron 7AhadB 0ade out a !ufficient ca!e8 for interi0 0ea!ure! and ordered .cuador to 7ta:e all 0ea!ure! at it! di!po!al to !u!pend or cau!e to +e !u!pended the enforce0ent or recognition ithin and ithout .cuador of any 5udg0ent again!t AAChe&ronB in the Lago Agrio ca!e.8112 Dn January 239 20129 the tri+unal confir0ed and rei!!ued the 2e+ruary %9 2011 Drder a! an Interi0 A ard9 ordering .cuador 7to ta:e all 0ea!ure! at it! di!po!al to !u!pend or cau!e to +e !u!pended the enforce0ent or recognition ithin and ithout .cuador of any 5udg0ent again!t AChe&ronB in the Lago Agrio ca!e.8 11* -hat Interi0 A ard i! final and *1%# +inding and !u+5ect to recognition and enforce0ent in do0e!tic court! in .cuador and el!e here. 2inally9 on 2e+ruary 1C9 20129 the tri+unal i!!ued a (econd Interi0 A ard finding that Che&ron ha! 0ade a !ufficient ca!e regarding 7the Clai0ant!> ca!e on the 0erit! again!t the Re!pondent8 and ordered .cuador to pre&ent the Lago Agrio 5udg0ent fro0 +eco0ing final and +inding +y precluding 7any certification +y the Re!pondent that ould cau!e the !aid 5udg0ent! to +e enforcea+le again!t8 Che&ron. 11/ $e!pite the 2e+ruary %9 2011 interi0 0ea!ure!9 on January *9 20129 an .cuadorian appeal! court affir0ed the Lago Agrio 5udg0ent9 rendering the H1) +illion 5udg0ent enforcea+le a+road. 113 -he .cuadorian plaintiff! ha&e identified t enty1!e&en nation! here Che&ron ha! !u+!tantial acti&itie!9 and 0ay !oon !ee: to enforce the Lago Agrio 5udg0ent a+road. -he principal defen!e Che&ron ill rai!e in any !uch enforce0ent action ill +e +a!ed on the e&idence gathered pur!uant to (ection 1#)2. -he :ey fact! rele&ant to a denial of 5u!tice clai0 are al!o rele&ant hen defending again!t a foreign 5udg0ent enforce0ent proceeding. -hu!9 ancillary di!co&ery in aid of international ar+itration could play a funda0ental role in future enforce0ent proceeding! in foreign court! around the orld. IV. I-.lications -here are !e&eral funda0ental i0plication! one 0ay dra fro0 thi! re&ie of ancillary di!co&ery under (ection 1#)2. A. )*e +o-ity of +ourts (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery order! in aid of international tri+unal! reflect !en!iti&ity to the co0ity of court!9 not the co0ity of nation!.11C ;hen Congre!! a0ended the !tatute in 1%C/9 it di!tingui!hed +et een ancillary di!co&ery in aid of foreign and international proceeding!. ;ith re!pect to a!!i!tance to foreign court proceeding!9 federal court! !hould con!ider the 7nature and attitude! of the go&ern0ent fro0 hich the re6ue!t e0anate! and the character of the proceeding! in that country.8 11# ;ith international tri+unal!9 +y contra!t9 the (enate Report !tated that federal court! !hould con!ider 7the nature of the tri+unal and the character of the proceeding! *1%8 +efore it.811) Clearly a foreign go&ern0ent>! attitude ith re!pect to federal court a!!i!tance to international tri+unal! a! not 0entioned a! a di!cretionary factor. -he (upre0e Court addre!!ed the (enate Report in Intel in the 0o!t cur!ory fa!hion9 eliding the di!cretionary factor! applica+le to foreign proceeding! ith tho!e of international proceeding!. AAB! the 1%C/ (enate Report !ugge!t!9 a court pre!ented ith a = 1#)2(a) re6ue!t 0ay ta:e into account the nature of the foreign tri+unal9 the character of the proceeding! under ay a+road9 and the recepti&ity of the foreign go&ern0ent or the court or agency a+road to '.(. federal1court 5udicial a!!i!tance.11% -he +e!t reading of thi! cryptic ad0onition i! to con!ider the recepti&ity factor in the di!5uncti&e. If the ancillary di!co&ery i! in aid of foreign court proceeding!9 then the recepti&ity of the foreign go&ern0ent i! rele&ant. 120 If9 +y contra!t9 the ancillary di!co&ery i! in aid of international tri+unal proceeding!9 then the recepti&ity of the international tri+unal i! rele&ant. 121 -he fact that a foreign go&ern0ent i! a party in that proceeding doe! not 0ean that it! recepti&ity to the re6ue!t i! rele&ant. In other ord!9 to the e<tent that co0ity i! rele&ant to a (ection 1#)2 analy!i!9 it i! rele&ant for +alancing the intere!t! of 5udicial coordination +et een the ancillary federal court ordering di!co&ery and the pri0ary foreign or international tri+unal re!ol&ing the clai0. -hi! conclu!ion i! particularly i0portant in the denial of 5u!tice conte<t. -o the e<tent ancillary di!co&ery i! in aid of international proceeding! ad5udicating 6ue!tion! of foreign 5udicial 0i!conduct9 there fre6uently ill +e +oth foreign court and international tri+unal proceeding!. If the (ection 1#)2 re6ue!t i! for u!e in +oth proceeding!9 then the recepti&ity of the international tri+unal and the foreign go&ern0ent ill +e rele&ant to any deter0ination hether to grant or

deny an ancillary di!co&ery re6ue!t. 122 ,ut if the e&idence i! intended for u!e only in the international proceeding to e!ta+li!h a denial of 5u!tice in a foreign proceeding9 then the attitude of the foreign go&ern0ent or a foreign court>! recepti&ity to !uch di!co&ery i! irrele&ant.12* -hi! conclu!ion follo ! fro0 the nature and purpo!e of in&e!t0ent ar+itration. ,y !igning a +ilateral in&e!t0ent treaty9 !o&ereign! in&ite international tri+unal! to !crutiniEe their +eha&ior. -herefore they do not *1%9 e<pect an international tri+unal to accord deference and re!pect to their !o&ereign conduct9 including the conduct of the 5udicial +ranch. It follo ! that court! addre!!ing (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery re6ue!t! in aid of in&e!t0ent ar+itration ill li:e i!e con!ider the attitude of the international tri+unal9 +ut not the attitude of the foreign !o&ereign re!ponding to allegation! of 5udicial i0propriety. Df cour!e9 an international tri+unal>! recepti&ity i! rele&ant to ancillary di!co&ery. Court!9 ho e&er9 neither gi&e !uch recepti&ity di!po!iti&e eight9 nor do they gi&e any eight to an international tri+unal>! !ilence. 12/ 2urther0ore9 court! ha&e not follo ed the reco00endation of !o0e influential co00entator! !ugge!ting that9 in the intere!t of 5udicial co0ity9 court! !hould li0it (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery re6ue!t! to only tho!e i!!ued or appro&ed +y the international tri+unal. 123 Rather9 court! li+erally apply the congre!!ional policy of pro&iding 7e6uita+le and efficaciou! procedure! for the +enefit of tri+unal! and litigant!.812C Dne 0ight !ay that court! re0ain !:eptical of a +road application of 5udicial co0ity and ta:e !eriou!ly the 7&irtually unflagging o+ligation8 to e<erci!e the 5uri!dictional authority granted to the0 under (ection 1#)2.12# -hu! far9 international tri+unal! ha&e not o+5ected to thi! 0ethod of ancillary di!co&ery9 12) and9 at lea!t in the Che&ron1.cuador di!pute9 ha&e u!ed e&idence gathered pur!uant to (ection 1#)2 to i!!ue order! and a ard! again!t .cuador.12% (. A-erican/"tyle Disco ery in International 0roceedings -hrough (ection 1#)29 Congre!! ha! de0on!trated a co00it0ent to facilitate ancillary di!co&ery at ho0e for proceeding! a+road9 and to do !o con!i!tent ith A0erican under!tanding! of the proper !cope of di!co&ery. -hat !tyle of di!co&ery 0ay +e li0ited at the di!cretion of a federal court9 +ut the default rule i! to treat ancillary di!co&ery in aid of foreign or international proceeding! the !a0e a! any other type of *1&0 di!co&ery. In the e<erci!e of their 5uri!diction to facilitate ancillary di!co&ery9 federal court! routinely apply thi! default approach con!i!tent ith Congre!!> intent. -he re!ult i! the indirect incorporation of A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery into foreign and international proceeding!. -hi! li+eral approach to di!co&ery i! particularly i0portant for third1party di!co&ery. In 0o!t ca!e! third partie! are +eyond the reach of international tri+unal!9 and not !urpri!ingly9 third partie! are the principal target of (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery re6ue!t!. In the denial of 5u!tice conte<t9 the ri!e of (ection 1#)2 afford! in&e!tor! a po erful tool to e!ta+li!h allegation! that a foreign 5udg0ent a! procured +y fraud. -he litigant that allegedly engaged in fraud in the foreign proceeding i! not a party to the international proceeding and therefore a0ena+le to ancillary di!co&ery ithout offending the Intel di!cretionary factor!.1*0 A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery in international proceeding! ha! the o+&iou! potential for a+u!e. 2or e<a0ple9 in furtherance of it! effort! to e!ta+li!h that the .cuadorian 5udg0ent a! procured +y fraud9 Che&ron reportedly i!!ued !u+poena! to 4oogle9 Kahoo9 and Jicro!oft to acce!! al0o!t a decade of e0ail log! of o&er 100 e0ail addre!!e!9 including tho!e ith no direct relation!hip to the di!pute.1*1 A0ong the indi&idual! ho!e e0ail log! ere !ought a! an international la profe!!or ho +log! at Dpinio Juri! and ha! no in&ol&e0ent in the ca!e +eyond critical co00entary of Che&ron. 1*2 Che&ron 0aintain! that the !u+poena! are nece!!ary to deter0ine hether the e0ail account! +elong to :ey participant! in the di!pute9 hile tho!e !u+5ect to the !u+poena allege that Che&ron i! trying to hara!! and inti0ate it! critic!. 1** A! noted a+o&e9 !uch li+eral di!co&ery run! counter to traditional under!tanding! of e&idence gathering that ha&e de&eloped in international *1&1 proceeding!. -o the e<tent thi! trend i! &ie ed ith alar09 there are opportunitie! to curtail it. -he partie! are free to incorporate di!co&ery li0it! in the ar+itration agree0ent. -hi! could +e done e<pre!!ly in the contract or +y incorporating !uch a li0it in the ar+itration rule!. -he LCIA Ar+itration Rule!9 for e<a0ple9 pro&ide that 7A+By agreeing to ar+itration under the!e rule!9 the partie! !hall +e treated a! ha&ing agreed not to apply to any !tate court or other 5udicial authority for any order a&aila+le fro0 the Ar+itral -ri+unal . . . e<cept ith the agree0ent in riting of all partie!.8 1*/ Alternati&ely9 the ar+itral tri+unal could i0po!e !uch a li0it in procedural order! at the +eginning of the ar+itration. 2or e<a0ple9 incorporating the I,A Rule! on the -a:ing of .&idence in International Ar+itration a! +inding rule! of e&idence argua+ly ould li0it the freedo0 to pur!ue third1party di!co&ery ithout lea&e fro0 the tri+unal. 1*3 2inally9 if partie! are a+u!ing the (ection 1#)2 proce!!9 an ar+itral tri+unal ha! the authority to i!!ue an order pre&enting !uch +eha&ior.1*C

Df cour!e9 there i! no a!!urance that a federal court ill recogniEe any !uch atte0pted li0it! on ancillary di!co&ery. Although court! are ad0oni!hed to a&oid granting a (ection 1#)2 re6ue!t that 7concealA!B an atte0pt to circu0&ent foreign proof1 gathering re!triction!.81*# -hi!9 ho e&er9 i! +ut one of 0any factor! under con!ideration hen ordering ancillary di!co&ery. +. , identiary 1oru- "*o..ing Got !urpri!ingly9 the option of re!orting to A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery ha! encouraged e&identiary foru0 !hopping. Li+eral di!co&ery pur!uant to (ection 1#)2 afford! litigant! an attracti&e alternati&e to the li0ited di!co&ery procedure! a&aila+le in international ar+itration or foreign litigation. -here are nu0erou! e<a0ple! of !uch foru0 !hopping. Rather than rely on the 2rench court! to gather e&idence of a 2rench national pur!uant to a 2rench proceeding9 litigant! !er&e hi0 di!co&ery re6ue!t! hile he i! &i!iting the 'nited (tate!. 1*) Rather than rely on the li0ited di!co&ery *1&2 a&aila+le in 4er0an court!9 a 4er0an plaintiff !ee:! 0illion! of docu0ent! fro0 it! A0erican ad&er!ary under li+eral A0erican di!co&ery rule!. 1*% Rather than !ee: e0ail! that re&eal fraud fro0 a foreign account holder9 the alleged &icti0 of fraud re6ue!t! !uch e0ail! fro0 4oogle9 the do0e!tic regi!trar of the e0ail account.1/0 Rather than e<a0ining Che&ron>! e<pert itne!! pur!uant to the procedure! e!ta+li!hed under international ar+itration9 .cuador !ecure! an order for the e<pert to produce docu0ent! and !u+0it to a depo!ition. 1/1 Rather than aiting to gather e&idence fro0 .cuador in international ar+itration9 Che&ron u!e! the li+eral !tandard! of (ection 1#)2 in an effort to gather e&idence directly fro0 .cuador. 1/2 Df cour!e9 the Intel di!cretionary factor! ere de!igned in part to pre&ent !uch +eha&ior9 +ut in 0o!t ca!e! federal court! ha&e granted !uch di!co&ery re6ue!t!. A! di!co&ery procedure! in international ar+itration cry!talliEe to ard a hy+rid 0odel that adopt! ele0ent! of ci&il la and co00on la di!co&ery9 coun!el11e!pecially A0erican coun!el11 ill u!e the li0it! inherent in the !y!te0 to 5u!tify recour!e to (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery. -o the e<tent thi! hy+rid 0odel of e&identiary !tandard! i! &ie ed a! a 5uri!dictional li0it on the tri+unal rather than a di!co&ery re!triction i0po!ed on the partie!9 there i! no +a!i! to argue that (ection 1#)2 re6ue!t! reflect an atte0pt to circu0&ent proof1gathering re!triction!. Dn the other hand9 if the!e e&identiary !tandard! are &ie ed a! li0it! on the po er of partie! to pur!ue di!co&ery +y other 0ean!9 then (ection 1#)2 re6ue!t! 0ay circu0&ent ar+itral proof1 gathering re!triction!.1/* .&identiary foru0 !hopping i! al!o e&ident in the choice of ho0 to target for di!co&ery. In the denial of 5u!tice conte<t here there are allegation! that a 5udg0ent a! procured +y fraud9 e&idence of !uch fraud could +e procured either fro0 a party to the in&e!t0ent ar+itration9 fro0 third partie!9 or +oth. In the Che&ron1.cuador di!pute9 for e<a0ple9 0uch of the e&idence Che&ron !ought could +e procured fro0 either .cuadorian 5udicial official! or the .cuadorian plaintiff! and their con!ultant! ho allegedly colluded ith tho!e official!. ,y opting to di!co&er !uch infor0ation fro0 the .cuadorian plaintiff! and con!ultant! rather than the .cuadorian 5udiciary9 Che&ron engaged in a &er!ion of e&identiary foru0 !hopping. Che&ron calculated that the payoff! of (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery fro0 the .cuadorian plaintiff! ould +e greater than the payoff! of ar+itration di!co&ery fro0 the .cuadorian 5udicial *1&3 official!. 4i&en the !cope and ti0ing of !uch e&identiary payoff!9 it i! hard to conclude other i!e. -here are legiti0ate concern! a+out tran!po!ing A0erican di!co&ery into foreign and international proceeding!. ;hile Che&ron>! recour!e to ancillary di!co&ery ha! +een critical to ad&ance it! due proce!! clai0!9 thi! approach ha! it! di!ad&antage!. -he grafting of A0erican di!co&ery into the!e proceeding! increa!e! co!t! and i0po!e! delay!. If left unchec:ed9 the A0ericaniEation of international ar+itration or foreign litigation through (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery could threaten to under0ine 0any of the percei&ed ad&antage! of the!e alternati&e foru0!. If the potential for a+u!e of ancillary di!co&ery i! o+&iou!9 the !olution i! e6ually o+&iou!. -he a+ility to li0it ancillary di!co&ery i! +uilt into the e<i!ting !y!te0 at nu0erou! le&el!. 2ederal court! ha&e the !tatutory di!cretion to li0it di!co&ery to that hich i! a&aila+le in international ar+itration or foreign proceeding!. 1// 2or e<a0ple9 the (upre0e Court in Intel ordered court! to e<erci!e caution in granting ancillary di!co&ery. In addition9 foreign court! are authoriEed to control di!co&ery and i0po!e li0it! on the partie!> fact1finding. International ar+itrator! are e0po ered +y e<i!ting ar+itration rule! to control di!co&ery and regulate recour!e to ancillary di!co&ery proceeding!. 2inally9 the partie! the0!el&e! 0ay i0po!e contractual li0it! to circu0!cri+e the !cope of (ection 1#)2 proceeding!. -o the e<tent Che&ron>! approach +eco0e! the nor0 rather than the e<ception" greater control of e&identiary foru0 !hopping 0ay need to +e i0po!ed. -hi! could +e done +y altering the !tatu! 6uo9 either through a0end0ent! to ar+itration in!titution

rule! that li0it ancillary di!co&ery9 or !tatutory a0end0ent! to (ection 1#)2 that re&er!e the default pre!u0ption of A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery. D. )wo/Le el 2a-es and Altering Incenti es Pro&iding foreign in&e!tor! ith a re0edy for denial of 5u!tice9 together ith a ro+u!t 0ean! to pro&e !uch a &iolation9 alter! the ho!t !tate>! +eha&ioral incenti&e!. In the typical denial of 5u!tice conte<t here there i! 5udicial corruption or !i0ilar &iolation! of funda0ental due proce!!9 a !tate often ha! an econo0ic incenti&e to engage in !uch 0i!conduct9 hether that incenti&e i! to cancel a de+t9 5u!tify illegal e<ecuti&e action9 re!pond to pu+lic preference!9 or i0properly ad5udicate clai0! again!t foreigner! for the general elfare.1/3 A denial of 5u!tice clai0 i0po!e! econo0ic +urden! on the !tate for 5udicial i0propriety. In a recent denial of 5u!tice clai0 again!t .cuador9 the international tri+unal ordered .cuador to pay al0o!t H#00 0illion for the *1&% .cuadorian court!> failure to re!ol&e clai0! that Che&ron had again!t !tate1o ned -e<Pet. 1/C In the current denial of 5u!tice clai0 that Che&ron ha! filed again!t .cuador9 if the tri+unal deter0ine! there ha! +een a denial of 5u!tice9 .cuador could +e re6uired to pay to Che&ron the e6ui&alent a0ount that Che&ron i! re6uired to pay to the .cuadorian plaintiff! pur!uant to the out!tanding H1) +illion 5udg0ent. ,y a!!igning co!t! on the !o&ereign for the da0age ari!ing fro0 a denial of 5u!tice9 the !o&ereign i! induced to change it! +eha&ior9 there+y enhancing the li:elihood that the !o&ereign ill decide again!t inflicting future in5ury. 1/# Ancillary di!co&ery to e!ta+li!h a denial of 5u!tice i! an i0portant co0ponent of thi! incenti&e !tructure. Creating an effecti&e 0ean! to e!ta+li!h e&idence of 5udicial 0i!conduct alter! the ri!:1re ard calculu! of a !o&ereign con!idering hether to deny foreign in&e!tor! funda0ental due proce!!. Jounting e&idence of fraud enhance! the li:elihood of !ucce!! on the 0erit!. Argua+ly9 that i! one of the rea!on! Che&ron filed a denial of 5u!tice clai0 in (epte0+er 200% a! !oon a! e&idence of alleged corruption ca0e to light9 +ut +efore the .cuadorian di!trict court i!!ued the H1) +illion Lago Agrio deci!ion on the 0erit!. Che&ron i! hoping11!o far un!ucce!!fully11to alter .cuador>! incenti&e calculu!. Jore +roadly9 the Che&ron1.cuador di!pute illu!trate! the unu!ual co0ple<ity of the t o1le&el ga0e in hich the !tate trie! to reconcile do0e!tic and international i0perati&e! !i0ultaneou!ly. Jo&e! that are 6uite rational for .cuador at the do0e!tic le&el 0ay +e irrational at the international le&el9 and &ice &er!a. At the national le&el9 the .cuadorian go&ern0ent adopt! policie! and practice! that !ati!fy do0e!tic con!tituent intere!t!9 !uch a! rendering a du+iou! 5udg0ent that redi!tri+ute! ealth fro0 a foreign corporation to 0illion! of con!tituent!. At the international le&el9 .cuador !ee:! to 0ini0iEe the ad&er!e con!e6uence! of foreign de&elop0ent!9 !uch a! the !pecter of an international ar+itral a ard ordering .cuador to co0pen!ate Che&ron for the +illion! it a! i0properly re6uired to pay to .cuadorian plaintiff!. - o1le&el ga0e theory a!!u0e! that go&ern0ent deci!ion10a:er! ill !tri&e to reconcile do0e!tic and international i0perati&e! !i0ultaneou!ly. 1/) -he filing of an international ar+itration clai0 alleging a denial of 5u!tice9 co0+ined ith di!co&ery tool! that effecti&ely e!ta+li!h an international la &iolation9 re6uire! the !tate to !ati!fy con!tituencie! at +oth the do0e!tic and *1&& international le&el!9 +y pur!uing path! that reconcile the international o+ligation ith the do0e!tic political preference. +onclusion (ection 1#)2 i! a long!tanding di!co&ery tool that only recently i! recei&ing the attention it de!er&e!. -here i! e&ery rea!on to +elie&e that recour!e to !uch ancillary di!co&ery ill continue to gro in the co0ing year!. Prior to Intel9 the !tatute a! of 0ode!t i0portance9 utiliEed in appro<i0ately t o ca!e! per year. 1/% (ince Intel9 there ha! +een a &erita+le e<plo!ion in ancillary di!co&ery re6ue!t!9 ith t ice a! 0any federal court deci!ion! addre!!ing (ection 1#)2 re6ue!t! in the pa!t eight year! a! there ere in the forty year! prior. 130 Interpreting the !tatute to apply to international ar+itration ha! greatly e<panded the opportunitie! for (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery. -he ri!e of ancillary di!co&ery in aid of international ar+itration ill follo fro0 the gro th of !uch ar+itration.131 Jany of the!e ill afford a0ple opportunity to pur!ue ancillary di!co&ery. -hi! gro th al!o portend! gro ing !cholarly intere!t in the !u+5ect. Currently there i! preciou! little !cholar!hip regarding ancillary di!co&ery under (ection 1#)29132 and none addre!!ing ancillary di!co&ery in aid of in&e!t0ent ar+itration. A! I ha&e !ugge!ted in thi! article9 ancillary di!co&ery to pro&e a denial of 5u!tice clai0 rai!e! !pecial concern! that 0erit !eriou! reflection. *1&' 2ortunately9 the Che&ron1.cuador di!pute ha! greatly enhanced the pu+lic profile of ancillary di!co&ery under (ection

1#)29 ith the pa!t t o year! itne!!ing the greate!t recour!e to ancillary di!co&ery in the !tatute>! hi!tory. -he Che&ron1 .cuador di!pute could pro&e to +e a ater!hed e&ent in the hi!tory of the !tatute9 including !cholarly analy!i! of the u!e of A0erican1!tyle di!co&ery in aid of foreign and international proceeding!. 2ootnote!
a1

Profe!!or of La 9 Gotre $a0e La (chool. J.$. Ge Kor: 'ni&er!ity" LL.J. 'ni&er!ity of .din+urgh. -he re!earch a!!i!tance of ,rendan P. 4eary i! greatly appreciated. -he article a! !u+0itted a! part of the Virginia Journal of International La >! addre!!ing 7Conflict! of Intere!t? Re!ol&ing $ifference! in 4lo+al Legal Gor0!8 in Charlotte!&ille9 Virginia on 2e+ruary 109 2012. Co00ent! and 6ue!tion! fro0 Peter 7,o8 Rutledge9 $onald 7-rey8 Childre!!9 Ien Ander!on9 $oug Ca!!el9 Jay -id0ar!h9 Paolo CaroEEa9 Jary .llen D>Connell9 Paul $u+in!:y9 4regory 2o<9 Charle! 7Chip8 ,ro er9 and Paul (tephan are gratefully ac:no ledged. (ee9 e.g.9 $o0inican Repu+lic1Central A0erica 2ree -rade Agree0ent (CA2-A1$R) art. 10.39 Aug. 39 200/9 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0MaEa&0&p (la!t &i!ited Apr. 209 2012)" 'nited (tate!1'ruguay ,ilateral In&e!t0ent -reaty art. 39 Go&. /9 20039 // I.L.J. 2C)" 'nited (tate!1R anda ,ilateral In&e!t0ent -reaty art. C(3)9 2e+. 1%9 200)9 (. -reaty $oc Go. 11012*. In re Application of Che&ron Corp. (,erlinger)9 #0% 2.(upp.2d 2)*9 *02 ((.$.G.K. 2010) aff>d Che&ron Corp. &. ,erlinger9 C2% 2.*d 2%# (2d Cir. 2011). 'ni&er!al $eclaration of @u0an Right!9 4.A. Re!. 21# (III) A9 art. 109 '.G. $oc AMR.(M21#(III) ($ec. 109 1%/)). .uropean Con&ention for the Protection of @u0an Right! and 2unda0ental 2reedo0! art. C(1)9 21* '.G.-.(. 222 (entered into force (ept. *9 1%3*)" !ee al!o International Con&ention on Ci&il and Political Right! art. 1/9 %%% '.G.-.(. 1#1 (entered into force Jar. 2*9 1%#C) (7In the deter0ination of any cri0inal charge again!t hi09 or of hi! right! and o+ligation! in a !uit at la 9 e&eryone !hall +e entitled to a fair and pu+lic hearing +y a co0petent9 independent and i0partial tri+unal e!ta+li!hed +y la .8). 2or a di!cu!!ion of the hi!torical antecedent! of the doctrine9 !ee9 e.g.9 .d in J. ,orchard9 -he $iplo0atic Protection of CitiEen! A+road 100 (1%13)" Al yn V. 2ree0an9 -he International Re!pon!i+ility of (tate! for $enial of Ju!tice (1%*))" Jan Paul!!on9 $enial of Ju!tice in International La 101*) (2003)" (tephen J. (ch e+el9 International Ar+itration? -hree (alient Pro+le0! CC (1%)#)" Charle! de Vi!!cher9 Le $eni de Ju!tice en $roit International9 32 @ague Recueil *#0 (1%*3)" 4.4. 2itE0aurice9 -he Jeaning of the -er0 7$enial of Ju!tice89 1* ,rit. K.,. Int>l L. 10) (1%*2)" @an! (piegel9 Drigin and $e&elop0ent of $enial of Ju!tice9 *2 A0er. J. Int>l L. C* (1%*)). (ee (piegel9 !upra note 39 at CC. Id. at )1. A0+atielo! Clai0 (4reece &. '.I.)9 2* I.L.R. *0C9 *23 (Ar+. Co00>n. 1%3C). (ee Paul!!on9 !upra note 39 at 1*1120C. A0+atielo!9 2* I.L.R. at *23" 4older &. 'nited Iingdo09 1 .ur. @.R. Rep. 32/9 3*11*C (1%#3). (ociNtN de! 4rand! -ra&au< de Jar!eille &. .a!t Pa:i!tan $e&. Corp.9 ICC Ca!e Go. 1)0* (1%#2)9 e<cerpted in Collection of ICC Ar+itral A ard! 1%#/11%)39 at // ((ig&ard Jar&in O K&e! $erain! ed!.9 1%%0) (7A-Bhe notion that a de+t !hould +eco0e &oid and indeed none<i!tent a+ initio for no +etter rea!on than that the de+tor ha! cho!en to put it in di!pute i! an e<tre0e e<a0ple of hat natural 5u!tice a+hor!.... It i! a flagrant a+u!e of right.8). (tran 4ree: Refinerie! and (trati! Andreadi! &. 4reece9 App. Go. 1*/2#M)# *011,. .ur. Ct. @.R. (!er. A)9 para. 30 (1%%/)" @i0purna Calif. .nergy Ltd. &. Repu+lic of Indone!ia9 2inal A ard (Dct. 1C9 1%%%) PPV K.,. Co00. Ar+. 10%9 1)21)* (2000). Ro+ert .. ,ro n ('.(. &. 4r. ,rit.)9 (Go&. 2*9 1%2*)9 VI RIAA 1209 12%" Jaco+ Idler &. VeneEuela (1))3)9 reprinted in J.,. Joore9 @i!tory and $ige!t of the International Ar+itration! to ;hich the '.(. @a! ,een a Party9 */239 *31C11# (1)%)). Joore9 !upra note 1*9 at *31C11#. A+raha0 (olo0on ('.(. &. Pan.)9 (June 2%9 1%**)9 VI RIAA *#09 *#21#*.

10

11

12

1*

1/

13

1C

Antoine 2a+iani (Go. 2) (2r. &. VeneE.)9 (July *19 1%03)9 P RIAA /)#)9 /))*1%00. Id. at /))/1%02" AEinian &. Je<ico9 (Go&. 19 1%%%)9 3 IC(I$ Report! 2C%9 para.102" Jonde& &. 'nited (tate!9 (Dct. 119 2002)9 /2 ILJ )3 (200*)9 para!.12C112#. Che&ron Corp. O -e<aco Petroleu0 Co. &. .cuador9 Partial A ard (Jar. *09 2010)9 para!.2309 2#29 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0M+3/cc23" Ro+ert AEinian &. 'nited Je<ican (tate!9 (Go&. 19 1%%%)9 3 IC(I$ Rep. 2#29 para.102 (2002). Joore9 !upra note 1*9 at *31/113. Loe en &. 'nited (tate!9 # IC(I$ Rep. //2 para!. 1*21*# (2003). Id. para.1*3. Cole! #) ,riti!h O 2oreign (tate Paper! 1*039 1*2) (1))C). A0co &. Indone!ia9 (Go&. 209 1%)/)9 1 IC(I$ Rep. *)%9 para!. 1%)1202 (1%%*). Jonde& &. 'nited (tate!9 (Dct. 119 2002)9 /2 I.L.J. )3 (200*)9 para!. 1*#1*). Jaco+ Idler &. VeneEuela9 Joore9 Ar+itration!9 */%19 *310" -he Drient ('.(. &. Je<.9 Joore9 Ar+itration!9 *22%1*1" AEinian &. Je<ico9 (Go&. 1 1%%%)9 3 IC(I$ Rep. 2#29 para. 10* (2002). Ienneth J. Vande&elde9 '.(. International In&e!t0ent Agree0ent! /11 (200%). 'nited (tate!1.cuador ,ilateral In&e!t0ent -reaty9 '.(.1.C9 Aug. 2#9 1%%*9 (. -reaty $oc. Go. 10*1139 art. II(#). .nergy Charter9 art. 10(12) $ec. 1#9 1%%1. Che&ron Corp. O -e<aco Petroleu0 Co. &. .cuador9 Partial A ard (Jar. *09 2010)9 para. 2//9 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0M+3/cc23. Id. (ee Ale<i! Jourre O Ale<andre Vagenhei09 (o0e co00ent! on $enial of Ju!tice in Pu+lic International La After Loe en and (aipe09 in ,ernado Cre0ade!9 Li+er A0icoru0? (o0e Co00ent! on $enial of Ju!tice in Pu+lic and Pri&ate International La )/) (J.A. 2ernQndeE1,alle!tero! O $a&id Aria!9 ed!.9 2010). Je! ald ;. (alacu!e9 ,I- +y ,I-? -he 4ro th of ,ilateral In&e!t0ent -reatie! and -heir I0pact on 2oreign In&e!t0ent in $e&eloping Countrie!9 2/ Int>l La . C339 C33 (1%%0) (referencing that there ere *0% ,I-( in 1%)%)" 'GC-A$ Analy!i! of ,I-!9 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0M+fp:d<& (referencing that there ere *)3 ,I-! in 1%)%). J. (ornara5ah9 -he International La on 2oreign In&e!t0ent 1#2 (*d ed. 2010). -he!e principle! include deci!ion! on hether to di!0i!! legal action! on the +a!i! of foru0 non con&enien!9 li! ali+i penden!9 choice of foru0 clau!e!9 international co0ity9 and the act of !tate doctrine. Clo!ely related are deci!ion! regarding hether to recogniEe and enforce foreign 5udg0ent!. (ee Chri!topher ;hytoc:9 $o0e!tic Court! and 4lo+al 4o&ernance9 )/ -ul. L. Re&. C#9 ##1)0 (200%). 'nderhill &. @ernandeE9 1C) '.(. 2309 232 (1)%#). Jourre O Vagenhei09 !upra note *19 at )3). 2) '.(.C. =1#)2(a). (ee9 e.g.9 Roger P. Alford9 2ederal Court!9 International -ri+unal!9 and the Continuu0 of $eference9 /* Va. J. Int>l L. C#39 C#% n.1* (200*) (noting that '.(. court! ha&e re5ected a +road definition of international tri+unal for 7there i! nothing in the te<t or legi!lati&e hi!tory to !upport !uch a +road definition and it ould re6uire federal court! to pro&ide greater a!!i!tance to foreign and international pri&ate ar+itral tri+unal! than to holly do0e!tic ar+itral tri+unal!8).

1#

1)

1%

20

21

22

2*

2/

23

2C

2#

2)

2%

*0

*1

*2

**

*/

*3

*C

*#

*)

*%

Gat>l ,road. Co. &. ,ear (tearn! O Co.9 1C3 2.*d 1)/9 1%01%1 (2d Cir. 1%%%). Repu+lic of IaEa:h!tan &. ,ieder0ann Int>l9 1C) 2.*d ))09 ))* (3th Cir. 1%%%). 3/2 '.(. 2/1 (200/). Id. at 23). Id. at 23%. Id. at 23) (citing (0it9 International Litigation under the 'nited (tate! Code9 C3 Colu0. L. Re&. 10139 102C n.#1 (1%C3)). Id. at 2C/1C3. 2or a di!cu!!ion of thi! ca!e la 9 !ee Ienneth ,eale et al.9 (ol&ing the =1#)2 PuEEle? ,ringing Certainty to the $e+ate o&er 2) '.(.C. =1#)2>! Application to International Ar+itration9 /# (tan. J. Int>l L. 319 C#1)% (2011)" Jenna J. 4odfrey9 Co00ent9 A0ericaniEation of $i!co&ery? ;hy (tatutory Interpretation ,ar! 2) '.(.C. =1#)2(a)>! Application in Pri&ate International Ar+itration Proceeding!9 C0 A0. '. L. Re&. /#39 /%21%) (2010). (ee In re ,road!heet L.L.C.9 2011 ;L /%/%)C/9 at L2 ($. Colo. Dct. 1)9 2011)" 4o&ern0ent of 4hana &. Pro.nergy (er&ice!9 L.L.C.9 2011 ;L 2C32#339 at L* (;.$. Jo. June C9 2011)" .< rel Application of ;inning (@I) (hipping Co. Ltd.9 2010 ;L 1#%C3#%9 at L*110 ((.$. 2la. Apr. *09 2010)" DJ(C ':rnafta &. Carpat!:y Petroleu0 Corp.9 200% ;L 2)##13C9 at L213 ($. Conn. Aug. 2#9 200%)" In re ,a+coc: ,or!ig A49 3)* 2.(upp. 2d 2**9 2*#1/0 ($. Ja!!. 200))" In re @all0ar: Capital Corp.9 3*/ 2.(upp. 2d %319 %3*13# ($. Jinn. 200#)" In re RoE -rading Ltd.9 /C% 2.(upp. 2d 12219 122*12) (G.$. 4a. 200C). In re Con!orcio .cuatoriano de -eleco0unicacione! (.A. &. JA( 2or arding ('(A)9 Inc.9 C)3 2.*d %)#9 %%# (11th Cir. 2012) (!econd and third alteration in original) (citation o0itted)" !ee al!o ,o+coc: ,or!ig A49 3)* 2.(upp. 2d9 at 2/0 (7-here i! no te<tual +a!i! upon hich to dra a di!tinction +et een pu+lic and pri&ate ar+itral tri+unal!9 and the (upre0e Court in Intel repeatedly refu!ed to place Fcategorical li0itation!> on the a&aila+ility of =1#)2(a).8) (citation o0itted). In re RoE -rading9 /C% 2.(upp. 2d at 1223. Id. at 122). In re 2in!er&e 4roup Ltd.9 2011 ;L 302/2C/ ($.(.C. Dct. 209 2011)" In re Application +y Rhodianyl (.A.(. 111102C1J-J9 2011 '.(. $i!t. L.PI( #2%1) ($. Ian. Jar. 239 2011)" In re An Ar+itration in London9 .ngland9 +et een Gorfol: (. Corp.9 Gorfol: (. Ry. Co.9 O 4en. (ec. In!. Co.9 and Ace ,er0uda Ltd.9 C2C 2.(upp. 2d ))29 ))*1)C (G.$. Ill. 200%)" In re Application of Dperadora $, Je<ico9 (.A.9 200% ;L 2/2*1*)9 at L)112 (J.$. 2la. Aug. /9 200%)" La Co0i!ion .5ecuti&a @idroelecctrica $el Rio Le0pa &. .l Pa!o Corp.9 C1# 2.(upp.2d /)19 /)31/)# ((.$. -e<. 200))9 aff>d */1 2ed. App<. *19 200% ;L 2/0#1)% (3th Cir. Aug. C9 200%) (unpu+li!hed). Gorfol: (. Corp.9 C2C 2.(upp. 2d at ))C" .l Pa!o9 C1# 2.(upp. 2d at /)3" Dperadora $, Je<ico9 200% ;L 2/2*1*) at L10. Gorfol: (. Corp.9 C2C 2.(upp. 2d at ))C. Dperadora $, Je<ico9 200% ;L 2/2*1*) at L11. Rhodianyl9 Ca!e Go. 111102C1J-J at *1. (i0ilarly9 the 2ifth Circuit9 in an unpu+li!hed opinion9 e<pre!!ed concern that 7e0po ering partie! in international ar+itration! to !ee: ancillary di!co&ery through federal court! could de!troy ar+itration>! principal ad&antage a! a F!peedy9 econo0ical9 and effecti&e 0ean! of di!pute re!olution> if the partie! F!uccu0+ to fighting o&er +urden!o0e di!co&ery re6ue!t! far fro0 the place of ar+itration.8> .l Pa!o Corp. &. La Co0i!ion .5ecuti&a @idroelectrica $el Rio Le0pa9 */1 2ed. App<. *19 */ (3th Cir. 200%). In re Application of Che&ron Corp.9 C30 2.*d 2#C (*d Cir. 2011)" In re Application of Che&ron Corp.9 C** 2.*d 13*9 1C19 (*d Cir. 2011)" In re Application of .cuador9 2011 ;L //*/)1C9 at L2 (G.$. Cal. (ept. 2*9 2011)" In re Application of .cuador9 2011 ;L /0)%1)%9 at L2 (..$. Cal. (ept. 1*9 2011)" Repu+lic of .cuador &. ,5or:0an9 )01 2.(upp. 2d 11219 112/ ($. Colo. 2011)9 aff>d 2011 ;L 3/*%C)1 ($. Colo. Go&. %9 2011)" In re Repu+lic of .cuador9 2011 ;L #*C)C)9 at L11*9 (G.$. Cal. 2e+. 229 2011)" In re Application of Che&ron Corp.9 #C2 2.(upp. 2d 2/29 230132 ($. Ja!!. 2010)" Che&ron Corp. &. (hefftE9 #3/

/0

/1

/2

/*

//

/3

/C

/#

/)

/%

30

31

32

3*

3/

33

3C

2.(upp. 2d 23/9 2C0 ($. Ja!!. 2010)" In re Repu+lic of .cuador9 2010 ;L /%#*/%29 at LC1) (G.$. Cal. $ec. 19 2010)" ,erlinger9 #0% 2.(upp. 2d 2)*9 2%1 ((.$.G.K. 2010)9 aff>d Che&ron Corp. &. ,erlinger9 C2% 2.*d 2%# (2d. Cir. 2011)" In re Application of Caratu+e Int>l Dil Co.9 #*0 2.(upp. 2d 1019 10/103 ($.$.C. 2010) (a!!u0ing ithout deciding that IC(I$ ar+itration panel! are 7international tri+unal!8)" In re Application of Che&ron Corp. ($onEiger)9 #/% 2.(upp. 2d 1/19 13%11C0 ((.$.G.K. 2010)" In re Application of Ricardo Veiga9 #/C 2.(upp. 2d )9 2212* ($.$.C. 2010)" In re Che&ron Corp.9 #3* 2.(upp. 2d 3*C9 3*% ($. Jd. Go&. 2/9 2010)" In re Che&ron Corp.9 2010 ;L /))*1119 at L2 n.2 (;.$. Va. Go&. 2/9 2010) (deter0ining that there a! no need to decide hether an ar+itral proceeding a! an 7international tri+unal8 in light of foreign proceeding in .cuador)" In re Repu+lic of .cuador9 2010 ;L /02##/09 at L2 (..$. Cal. Dct. 1/9 2010) " In re Repu+lic of .cuador9 2010 ;L *#02/2#9 at L* (G.$. Cal. (ept. 139 2010)" Che&ron Corp. &. Ca0p9 2010 ;L */1)*%/9 at L/ (;.$.G.C. Aug. *09 2010)" Che&ron Corp. &. (tratu! Con!ulting9 Inc.9 2010 ;L 21*321# ($. Colo. Jay 239 2010)" Che&ron Corp. &. (tratu! Con!ulting9 Inc.9 2010 ;L 1/))010 ($. Colo. Apr. 1*9 2010)" Drder9 In re Che&ron9 Go. 1?101JI100#C1-;-144, (G.$. 4a. Jar. 29 2010)" In re Application of D<u! 4old PLC9 200C ;L 2%2#C13 ($.G.J. Dct. 119 200C).
3#

In one unpu+li!hed order9 a federal di!trict court concluded that e<i!ting 2ifth Circuit precedent controlled the 6ue!tion of hether ar+itral tri+unal! are international tri+unal! ithin the 0eaning of (ection 1#)29 and concluded that an in&e!t0ent ar+itration tri+unal a! not an international tri+unal. -hi! order i! on appeal to the 2ifth Circuit. (ee Repu+lic of .cuador &. Connor9 Ca!e Go. @111131C ((.$. -e<. 2e+. C9 2012). .cuador1'nited (tate! ,ilateral In&e!t0ent -reaty9 (Aug. 2#9 1%%*)9 (. -reaty $oc. Go. 10*1139 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0Ma/l+&3y. A0ong the allegation! are that the Repu+lic of .cuador (1) i0properly e<erci!ed de facto 5uri!diction o&er Che&ron" (2) i0properly a!!i!ted and colluded ith the Lago Agrio plaintiff! in an effort to i0po!e the !tate>! o+ligation! on Che&ron" (*) i0properly influenced the .cuador court! through pu+lic !tate0ent!" and (/) a+u!ed the .cuador cri0inal 5u!tice !y!te0 to ad&ance .cuador>! i0proper goal!. (ee Che&ron Corp. &. Repu+lic of .cuador9 Clai0ant>! Gotice of Ar+itration9 ((ept. 2*9 200%)9 at 1311C9 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0Maac52dh. ,ilateral In&e!t0ent -reaty9 !upra note 3)9 art. II9 para. #. Id. at art. VI. Intel Corp. &. Ad&anced Jicrode&ice!9 Inc.9 3/2 '.(. 2/19 2C/1C3 (200/). In re Che&ron9 C** 2.*d at 13%1C0. Id. at 1C1. Id. Id. at 1C*. ,erlinger9 #0% 2.(upp. 2d 2)*9 2%2 ((.$.G.K. 2010) aff>d Che&ron Corp. &. ,erlinger9 C2% 2.*d 2%# (2d. Cir. 2011). Id. $onEiger9 #/% 2.(upp. 2d 1/19 1C1 ((.$.G.K. 2010)" !ee al!o Che&ron9 2010 ;L /))*1119 at L* (;.$. Va. Go&. 2/9 2010). Ja&ier Ru+en!tein9 International Co00ercial Ar+itration? Reflection! at the Cro!!road! of the Co00on La -radition!9 3 Chi. J. Int>l L. *0*9 *0/ (200/). and Ci&il La

3)

3%

C0

C1

C2

C*

C/

C3

CC

C#

C)

C%

#0

2) '.(.C. =1#)2(a) (200C)" !ee Ie!trel Coal Pty. Ltd. &. Joy 4lo+al Inc.9 *C2 2.*d /019 /0/ (#th Cir. 200/) (holding that di!co&ery 70u!t confor0 either to the procedure of the foreign nation or to that of the 2ederal Rule! of Ci&il Procedure8). 2) '.(.C. =1#)2(a) (200C)" !ee9 e.g.9 IulEer &. ,io0et9 Inc.9 C** 2.*d 3%19 3%3 (#th Cir. 2011) (7A$Bi!co&ery !ought under !ection 1#)2 0u!t (in the a+!ence of a contrary order +y the di!trict court) co0ply ith Rule 2C and the other rule! go&erning di!co&ery in federal court!.8). (. Rep. Go. ))113)0 at ) (1%C/)9 reprinted in 1%C/ '.(.C.C.A.G. *#)29 *#)%. 2ed. R. Ci&. P. 2C(+)(1)" !ee9 e.g.9 ;e+er &. 2in:er9 33/ 2.*d 1*#%9 1*)/1)3 (11th Cir. 200%)" In re Clerici9 /)1 2.*d 1*2/9 1**C (11th Cir. 200#)" Che&ron Corp. &. (hefftE9 #3/ 2.(upp. 2d 23/9 2C/ ($. Ja!!. 2010)" In re Che&ron Corp.9 2010 ;L /))*1119 at L/ (;.$. Va. Go&. 2/9 2010)" In re Application of .li Lilli9 2010 ;L 230%1**9 at L* ($. Conn. June 139 2010)" In re

#1

#2

#*

Application Pur!uant to 2) '.(.C. =1#)29 2/% 2.R.$. %C9 10C ((.$.G.K. 200)).
#/

2ed. R. Ci&. P. 2C(+)(1). 4hana &. Pro.nergy (er&ice!9 LLC9 2011 ;L 2C32#339 at LC (;.$. Jo. June C9 2011) (7$i!co&ery i! a! +road under =1#)2 a! it i! under 2ed. R. Ci&. P. 2C. -hu!9 if there i! a po!!i+ility that the di!co&ery 0ay lead to infor0ation rele&ant to the !u+5ect 0atter of the action9 then the di!co&ery !hould generally +e allo ed.8). In re Application of Ricardo Veiga9 #/C 2.(upp. 2d )9 1% ($.$.C. 2010)" In re Application Pur!uant to (ection 2) '.(.C. =1#)29 2/% 2.R.$. %C9 10C ((.$.G.K. 200)). In re @oney ell Int>l. Inc.9 2*0 2.R.$. 2%*9 *01 ((.$.G.K. 200)). In re .del0an9 2%3 2.*d 1#19 1#/9 1)0 (2d Cir. 2002) (7A;Be hold that if a per!on i! !er&ed ith a !u+poena hile phy!ically pre!ent in the di!trict of the court that i!!ued the di!co&ery order9 then for purpo!e! of =1#)2(a)9 he i! Ffound> in that di!trict.8). In re D<u! 4old PLC9 Go. 0C1)29 200C ;L 2%2#C139 at L3 ($.G.J. Dct. 119 200C). (ee9 e.g.9 In re ,eluga (hipping 40+@ O Co.9 2010 ;L *#/%2#%9 at L/13 (G.$. Cal. (ept. 2*9 2010). 2) '.(.C. =1#)2(a) (e0pha!i! added). Intel Corp. &. Ad&anced Jicrode&ice!9 Inc.9 3/2 '.(. 2/19 23C (200/). (ee9 e.g.9 4eoffrey @aEard9 $i!co&ery and the Role of the Judge in Ci&il La Juri!diction!9 #* Gotre $a0e L. Re&. 101# (1%%)) (di!cu!!ing the difference! +et een '.(. and foreign nation!> di!co&ery !tandard! and procedure!)" Ja0e! ,eard!ley9 -he Proof of 2act in 2rench Ci&il Procedure9 */ A0. J. Co0p. L. /3% (1%)C) (di!cu!!ing 2rench di!co&ery procedure! for ci&il trial!)" Vol:er -rie+el9 An Dutline of the ( i!!M4er0an Rule! of Ci&il Procedure and Practice Relating to .&idence9 /# Ar+. 221 (1%)2). Int>l. ,ar A!!>n. Rule! on the -a:ing of .&idence in International Ar+itration9 art. / (2010)" 4ary ,orn9 International Co00ercial Ar+itration 1%0*103 (200%). Id. Int>l. ,ar. A!!>n. Rule! on the -a:ing of .&idence in International Ar+itration9 art. * (2010). Id. at art. %.2. ,orn9 !upra note )/9 at 1%0#. ,erlinger9 #0% 2.(upp. 2d 2)*9 2))1)% ((.$.G.K. 2010) aff>d Che&ron Corp. &. ,erlinger9 C2% 2.*d 2%# (2d. Cir. 2011)" Patric: Radden Ieefe9 Re&er!al of 2ortune9 -he Ge Kor:er (Jan. 2012). ,erlinger9 #0% 2.(upp. 2d at 2%%. Che&ron Corp. &. Garan5o9 CC# 2.*d 2*2 (2d Cir. 2012). In re Che&ron9 C30 2.*d 2#C9 2)2 n.# (*d Cir. 2011). Ieefe9 !upra note )%. ,rief of Plaintiff1Appellee at 2012*9 Che&ron &. Ca0acho9 CC# 2.*d. 2*2 (2d. Cir. 2012) (Go. 1111130). Che&ron &. $onEiger9 #C) 2.(upp. 2d 3)19 C039 C*C ((.$.G.K. 2011) re&>d on other ground!9 CC# 2.*d 2*2 (2d Cir. 2012). Id. at C12. Dn the +a!i! of thi! e&idence9 the di!trict court en5oined the .cuadorian plaintiff! fro0 enforcing the 5udg0ent a+road. Id. at C**1*/. Dn January 2C9 20129 the (econd Circuit re&er!ed the di!trict court>! anti!uit in5unction9 concluding that

#3

#C

##

#)

#%

)0

)1

)2

)*

)/

)3

)C

)#

))

)%

%0

%1

%2

%*

%/

%3

%C

there a! no !tatutory authority under Ge Kor: Recognition Act to i!!ue !uch a declaratory in5unction. (ee Che&ron Corp. &. Garan5o9 CC# 2.*d 2*29 2*/ (2d Cir. 2012). -he (econd Circuit e<pre!!ed 7no &ie ! on the 0erit! of the partie!> &ariou! charge! and counter1charge! regarding the .cuadorian legal !y!te0 and their ad&er!arie!> conduct of thi! litigation9 hich 0ay +e addre!!ed a! rele&ant in other litigation +efore the di!trict court or el!e here.8 Id. at 2/) n.1#.
%#

Che&ron &. Page9 R;-11111%/2 $:t. **9 #* ($. Jd. (ept. 2#9 2011). (ee9 e.g.9 Che&ron Corp. &. ;ein+erg 4roup9 Go. 1?1110c100/0%1JJ29 !lip op. at ) ($.$.C. (ept. )9 2011) (7A-Bhere i! 0ore than !ufficient e&idence of a pri0a facie ca!e that Aplaintiff!> con!ultantB the ;ein+erg 4roup>! or: a! part of a fraud upon the .cuadorian court.8)" In re Application of Che&ron Corp.9 #/% 2. (upp. 2d 1/19 1C# ((.$.G.K. 2010) (7A-B here i! 0ore than a little e&idence that $onEiger>! acti&itie!11a! !e&eral court! already ha&e held in the conte<t of (ection 1#)2 application! again!t e<pert! in&ol&ed on the Lago Agrio plaintiff!> !ide11co0e ithin the cri0e1fraud e<ception to +oth the pri&ilege and to or: product protection.8)" In re Application of Che&ron Corp.9 Go. 101c&111/C1I.4(;Jc)9 2010 ;L *3)/3209 at LC ((.$. Cal. (ept. 109 2010) (7-here i! a0ple e&idence in the record that the .cuadorian Plaintiff! !ecretly pro&ided infor0ation to Jr. Ca+rera9 ho a! !uppo!edly a neutral court1appointed e<pert9 and colluded ith Jr. Ca+rera to 0a:e it loo: li:e the opinion! ere hi! o n.8)" In re Che&ron Corp.9 Go. 1?1010c1000211JC@1L249 !lip op. at *1/ ($.G.J. (ept. 29 2010) (7-he relea!e of 0any hour! of the outta:e! ha! !ent !hoc: a&e! through the nation>! legal co00unitie!9 pri0arily +ecau!e the footage !ho !9 ith unflattering fran:ne!!9 inappropriate9 unethical and perhap! illegal conduct.8)" Che&ron Corp. &. Ca0p9 Go!. 1?1010c12#9 1?1010c12)9 2010 ;L */1)*%/9 at LC (;.$.G.C. Aug. *09 2010) (7;hile thi! court i! unfa0iliar ith the practice! of the .cuadorian 5udicial !y!te09 the court 0u!t +elie&e that the concept of fraud i! uni&er!al9 and that hat ha! +latantly occurred in thi! 0atter ould in fact +e con!idered fraud +y any court.8). (ee $epo!ition of (te&en $onEiger at )3*9 Ca!e 1?101c&1000/#1J(I1J.@9 $oc. *0C11 (7ARue!tion?B 7(o it i! a fact that Jr. Ca+rera11that the Ca+rera report a! in part ritten +y (tratu!9 i!n>t itS8 A$onEiger?B 7(tratu! rote up part! of the report9 or 0aterial!9 I !hould !ay9 that ere adopted +y hi0 &er+ati0. (o ith that ca&eat9 the an! er to your 6ue!tion ould +e ye!.8). $a&id R. ,a:er9 Che&ron 2ind! a '!eful -actic in .cuador Ca!e9 (an 2ranci!co Chronicle9 Jan. 29 2011 (6uoting Aug. %9 2010 letter fro0 plaintiff la yer Jo!eph Iohn). .0ail fro0 Julio Prieto to (te&en $onEiger9 (Jar. *09 20109 2?02?3* PJ) (on file ith court ca!e 1?111c&100C%11LAI). (ee9 e.g.9 In re Application of .cuador9 Go!. C 111)01#1 CR,9 C 111)01#2 CR,9 2011 ;L //*/)1C (G.$. Cal. (ept. 2*9 2011)" In re Application of .cuador9 Go. 2?1110c100032 4(A9 2011 ;L /0)%1)% (..$. Cal. (ept. 1*9 2011) " Repu+lic of .cuador &. ,5or:0an9 Go. 111c&101/#01;K$1J.@9 2011 ;L 3/*%C)1 ($. Colo. Go&. %9 2011)" Repu+lic of .cuador &. ,5or:0an9 )01 2.(upp. 2d 1121 ($. Colo. 2011)" In re Application of .cuador9 Go!. C1101)0223 JI(C CR, (.JC)9 C1101)0*2/ JI(C CR, (.JC)9 2011 ;L #*C)C) (G.$. Cal. 2e+. 229 2011)" In re Application of .cuador9 Go. C1101)02239 2010 ;L /%#*/%2 (G.$. Cal. $ec. 19 2010)" In re Application of .cuador9 Go. 1?1010c1000/0 4(A9 2010 ;L /02##/0 (..$. Cal. Dct. 1/9 2010)" In re Application of .cuador9 Go. C1101)02239 2010 ;L *#02/2# (G.$. Cal. (ept. 139 2010). Patton ,ogg!9 In&ictu! Je0o9 Path 2or ard? (ecuring and .nforcing Judg0ent and Reaching (ettle0ent9 at )9 a&aila+le at http?MM tinyurl.co0Ma3n3rh! Ahereinafter In&icti! Je0oB. In re Application of .cuador9 2011 ;L #*C)C)9 at L10. Id. Id. (ee9 e.g.9 In re Che&ron9 C** 2.*d 13* (*d Cir. 2011)" Che&ron &. ,erlinger9 C2% 2.*d 2%# (2d Cir. 2011)" In re Che&ron9 #/% 2.(upp. 2d 1/19 ((.$.G.K. 2010)" Che&ron &. Ca0p9 2010 ;L */1)*%/ (;.$.G.C. 2010). (ee !upra note )21)C and acco0panying te<t. Ieefe9 !upra note )%. $epo!ition of (te&en $onEiger (Go&. 2%9 2010 to $ec. 2%9 2010)9 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0Ma)#%5#n. (ee9 e.g.9 ,erlinger9 #0% 2.(upp. 2d 2)*9 *00101 ((.$.G.K. 2010) aff>d Che&ron Corp. &. ,erlinger9 C2% 2.*d 2%# (2d Cir. 2011). Che&ron &. .cuador9 PCA Ca!e Go. 200%12*9 Drder for Interi0 Jea!ure!9 * (2e+. %9 2011)9 a&aila+le at

%)

%%

100

101

102

10*

10/

103

10C

10#

10)

10%

110

111

112

http?MMtinyurl.co0Ma5Eoh6y.
11*

Che&ron &. .cuador9 PCA Ca!e Go. 200%12*9 2ir!t Interi0 A ard9 1C (Jan. 239 2012). Che&ron &. .cuador9 PCA Ca!e Go. 200%12*9 (econd Interi0 A ard9 21* (2e+. 1C9 2012). Cau!e Go. 20111010C (Jan. *9 2012)9 a&aila+le at http?MM tinyurl.co0Mant*#du. -he co0ity of court! concern! the practice of 75udge! declinAingB to e<erci!e 5uri!diction o&er 0atter! 0ore appropriate ad5udged el!e here.8 @artford 2ire In!. Co. &. California9 30% '.(. #C/9 )1# (1%%*). (ee al!o $onald Childre!! III9 Co0ity a! Conflict? Re!ituating International Co0ity a! Conflict! of La !9 // '.C. $a&i! L. Re&. 119 C1 (2010) (7Judicial co0ity i!... a di!tinct doctrine fro0 the Fco0ity of nation!> +ecau!e it in&ol&e! a relation +et een court! and not +et een !o&ereign! a! !uch.8)" Jichael Ra0!ey9 .!caping 7International Co0ity98 )* Io a L. Re&. )%*9 )%#1%0C (1%%%) (di!cu!!ing 5udicial co0ity). (. Rep. Go. ))113)0 (1%C/)9 reprinted in '.(.C.C.A.G. *#)29 *#)). Id. Intel Corp. &. Ad&anced Jicrode&ice!9 Inc.9 3/2 '.(. 2/19 2C/ (200/). (ch0itE &. ,ern!tein Lie+hard O Lif!hitE9 LLP9 *#C 2.*d #%9 )/1)3 (2d Cir. 200/). In re Che&ron Corp.9 #/% 2.(upp. 2d 1/19 1C1 ((.$.G.K. 2010)" !ee al!o In re Che&ron Corp.9 2010 ;L /))*1119 at L*. In re Application of Che&ron Corp.9 C** 2.*d 13*9 1C11C* (*d Cir. 2011). Id. at 1C1. (ee9 e.g.9 In re Che&ron Corp.9 C** 2.*d at 1C*" In re Repu+lic of .cuador9 Go. 2?1110c100032 4(A9 2011 ;L /0)%1)%9 at L* (..$. Cal. (ept. 1*9 2011)" ,erlinger9 #0% 2.(upp. 2d 2)*9 2%2 O n. 31 ((.$.G.K. 2010)" In re Repu+lic of .cuador9 Go!. C1101 )0223 JI(C CR, (.JC)9 C1101)0*2/ JI(C CR, (.JC)9 2011 ;L #*C)C)9 at L# (G.$. Cal. 2e+. 229 2011)" In re Che&ron Corp.9 #C2 2.(upp. 2d 2/29 230132 ($. Ja!!. 2010)" In re Che&ron Corp.9 Go!. 101JC120)9 101JC120%9 2010 ;L 31#*2#%9 at L3 (..$. Pa. $ec. 209 2010)" In re Application of Ricardo Veiga9 #/C 2.(upp. 2d )9 2*12/ ($.$.C. 2010)" In re Repu+lic of .cuador9 2010 ;L /02##/09 at L2 (..$. Cal. Dct. 1/9 2010). (ee9 e.g.9 Co00ittee on International Co00ercial $i!pute! of the A!!ociation of the ,ar of the City of Ge Kor:9 2) '.(.C. =1#)2 a! a Jean! of D+taining $i!co&ery in Aid of International Co00ercial Ar+itration11 Applica+ility and ,e!t Practice!9 C* -he Record #329 ##)1#% (200))" ,orn9 !upra note )/9 at 1%*3. (.Rep. Go. ))113)0 (1%C/)9 reprinted in 1%C/ '.(.C.C.A.G. *#)29 *#%* (e0pha!i! added). ,ut cf. 4ro!! &. 4er0an 2ound. Indu!. Initiati&e9 /3C 2.*d *C*9 *%*1%/ (*d Cir. 200C). (ee Che&ron &. Ca0p9 2010 ;L */1)*%/9 at L3 (;.$.G.C. Aug. *09 2010). (ee Che&ron &. .cuador9 PCA Ca!e Go. 200%12*9 Drder for Interi0 Jea!ure!9 *1/ (2e+. %9 2011)" Che&ron &. .cuador9 PCA Ca!e Go. 200%12*9 Interi0 A ard9 1C11% (Jan. 239 2012). -o the e<tent an international tri+unal ha! the authority to order third party di!co&ery under (ection # of the 2ederal Ar+itration Act9 that po er 0ay under0ine argu0ent! that (ection 1#)2 di!co&ery i! nece!!ary. (ee % '.(.C. =# (7AABr+itrator!... 0ay !u00on... any per!on to attend +efore the0... a! a itne!! and... to +ring ith hi0 or the0 any... docu0ent... hich 0ay +e dee0ed 0aterial a! e&idence in the ca!e.8)" ,orn9 !upra note )/9 at 1%2C1** (di!cu!!ing ar+itral tri+unal authority under (ection # to order te!ti0ony and docu0ent production9 including +y third partie!9 in appropriate circu0!tance!). If an ar+itral tri+unal ha! the authority to order third party di!co&ery9 then the Intel di!cretionary factor! 0ay !ugge!t that federal court a!!i!tance i! un arranted. Go court !ince Intel ha! addre!!ed thi! relation!hip +et een (ection 1#)2 and (ection # of the 2AA. ,ecau!e (ection # only applie! to ar+itration! !eated in the 'nited (tate!9 the potential o&erlap +et een (ection 1#)2 and (ection # doe! not apply for 0o!t ancillary di!co&ery re6ue!t! that ha&e +een 0ade in recent year!9 including all !uch re6ue!t! in the Che&ron1 .cuador conte<t.

11/

113

11C

11#

11)

11%

120

121

122

12*

12/

123

12C

12#

12)

12%

1*0

1*1

$eclan JcCullagh9 Che&ron -arget! 4oogle9 Kahoo9 Jicro!oft .10ail Account!9 (Dct. 119 20129 *?03 PJ)9 http?MMtinyurl.co0M+hgpy/%" $a&id R. ,a:er9 Che&ron (ee:! .0ail Log! in .cuador (uit9 (an 2ranci!co Chronicle9 Dct. 19 2012 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0M% hC+C2. Ie&in Jon @eller9 Jy .ncounter ith a Che&ron (u+poena11and the ACL'>! A!!i!tance ('pdated)9 ((ept. 2)9 20129 10?00 AJ)9 http?MM tinyurl.co0M%0t2%<u. Id." ,rian @au!!9 Che&ron A!:! .0ail Pro&ider! to @and D&er '!er!> Pri&ate Infor0ation9 (Dct. 39 20129 2?0* PJ)9 http?MMtinyurl.co0Ma02f23r. LCIA Ar+itration Rule!9 art. 22(2)" ,orn9 !upra note )/9 at 1%*C. Int>l. ,ar A!!>n. Rule! on the -a:ing of .&idence in International Ar+itration9 art. *.% (2010) (7If a Party i!he! to o+tain the production of $ocu0ent! fro0 a per!on or organi!ation ho i! not a Party to the ar+itration and fro0 ho0 the Party cannot o+tain the $ocu0ent! on it! o n9 the Party 0ay9 ithin the ti0e ordered +y the Ar+itral -ri+unal9 a!: it to ta:e hate&er !tep! are legally a&aila+le to o+tain the re6ue!ted $ocu0ent!9 or !ee: lea&e fro0 the Ar+itral -ri+unal to ta:e !uch !tep! it!elf.8). 2or a di!cu!!ion of ar+itrator! a! di!co&ery gate:eeper!9 !ee 4iaco0o Ro5a! .lgueta9 'nder!tanding $i!co&ery in International Co00ercial Ar+itration -hrough ,eha&ioral La and .cono0ic!? A Journey In!ide the Jind! of Partie! and Ar+itrator!9 1C @ar&. Gegot. L. Re&. 1C39 1)01%1 (2011). Intel Corp. &. Ad&anced Jicrode&ice!9 Inc.9 3/2 '.(. 2/19 2C3 (200/). In re .del0an9 2%3 2.*d 1#19 1#/9 1)0 (2d Cir. 2002). IulEer &. ,io0et9 Inc.9 C** 2.*d 3%19 3%3 (#th Cir. 2011). In re ,eluga (hipping 40+@ O Co.9 2010 ;L *#/%2#% at L/13. In re Application of .cuador9 2011 ;L //*/)1C9 at L3 (G.$. Cal. (ept. 2*9 2011)" Int>l. ,ar A!!>n. Rule! on the -a:ing of .&idence in International Ar+itration art. 3 (2010). In re Application of .cuador9 2011 ;L #*C)C)9 at L10 (G.$. Cal. 2e+. 229 2011). In re Application of Caratu+e Int>l Dil Co.9 #*0 2.(upp. 2d 1019 10310# ($.$.C. 2010)" ,orn9 !upra note )/9 at 1%*31*C. 2) '.(.C. =1#)2(a). (ee !upra note %123 and acco0panying te<t. Che&ron Corp. O -e<aco Petroleu0 Co. &. .cuador9 Partial A ard (Jar. *09 2010)9 para. 330 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0M+3/cc23. (ee Roger P. Alford9 Ar+itrating @u0an Right!9 )* Gotre da0e L. Re&. 3039 32#12) (200)). Ro+ert $. Putna09 $iplo0acy and $o0e!tic Politic!? -he Logic of - o1Le&el 4a0e!9 /2 Int>l Drg. /2#9 /*/9 /C0 (1%))). 2or a di!cu!!ion applying t o1le&el ga0e theory to e<plain international la co0pliance9 !ee Joel -racht0an9 International La and $o0e!tic Political Coalition!? -he 4rand -heory of Co0pliance ith International La 9 11 Chi. J. Int>l L. 12#9 13*133 (2010). 2or a di!cu!!ion of di!co&ery and ga0e theory9 !ee .lgueta9 !upra note 1*C9 at 1##1#). ,a!ed on a ;e!tla !earch of ca!e! fro0 1%C/9 hen the !tatute a! a0ended9 to 200/9 +een %/ reported ca!e! addre!!ing (ection 1#)2 re6ue!t! in forty year!. ,a!ed on ;e!tla !earch there ha&e +een 1%0 reported (ection 1#)2 ca!e! !ince Intel tho!e ere reported in the pa!t three year!. hen Intel a! decided9 there ha&e

1*2

1**

1*/

1*3

1*C

1*#

1*)

1*%

1/0

1/1

1/2

1/*

1//

1/3

1/C

1/#

1/)

1/%

130

a! decided in 200/9 and a 0a5ority of

131

According to the ;orld ,an:9 there are 1C* pending in&e!t0ent ar+itration ca!e! currently ad0ini!tered under IC(I$ procedure!. IC(I$ Pending Ca!e!9 http?MMtinyurl.co0McC+6E+h (la!t &i!ited Go&. 139 2012). -he ICC reported al0o!t )00 re6ue!t! for international co00ercial ar+itration in 20109 and !ur&ey! of the 0a5or ar+itration in!titution! identify o&er *9000 international ar+itration! filed e&ery year. 2act! and 2igure! on ICC Ar+itration112010 (tati!tical Report9 a&aila+le at

http?MMtinyurl.co0M+#ndg<d" Rueen Jary (chool of International Ar+itration9 Ar+itration In!titution!M(tati!tic!9 a&aila+le at http?MMtinyurl.co0M+aeu5r/.
132

(ee9 e.g.9 Alan Rau9 .&idence and $i!co&ery in A0erican Ar+itration? -he Pro+le0 of 7-hird Partie!98 1% A0. Re&. Int>l Ar+. 19 2)1*% (200))" Paul R. $u+in!:y9 I! -ran!national Litigation a $i!tinct 2ieldS -he Per!i!tence of .<ceptionali!0 in A0erican Procedural La 9 // (tan. J. Int>l L. *019 **/1/1 (200)). -o the e<tent there i! co00entary9 al0o!t all of it i! li0ited to practitioner article! or !tudent note!. (ee9 e.g.9 Ienneth ,eale et al.9 (ol&ing the =1#)2 PuEEle? ,ringing Certainty to the $e+ate o&er 2) '.(.C. =1#)2>! Application to International Ar+itration9 /# (tan. J. Int>l L. 319 C#1)% (2011) " Jenna J. 4odfrey9 Co00ent9 A0ericaniEation of $i!co&ery? ;hy (tatutory Interpretation ,ar! 2) '.(.C. =1#)2(a)>! Application in Pri&ate International Ar+itration Proceeding!9 C0 A0. '. L. Re&. /#39 /%21%) (2010)" Jarat A. Ja!!en9 $i!co&ery for 2oreign Proceeding! After Intel &. Ad&anced Jicro $e&ice!? A Critical Analy!i! of 2) '.(.C. =1#)2 Juri!prudence9 )* (. Cal. L. Re&. )#3 (2010)" Pedro J. JartineE12raga9 -he 2uture of 2) '.(.C. =1#)2? -he Continued Ad&ance of A0erican1(tyle $i!co&ery in International Co00ercial Ar+itration9 C/ '. Jia0i L. Re&. )% (200%)" $aniel J. Roth!tein9 A Propo!al to Clarify '.(. La on Judicial A!!i!tance in -a:ing .&idence for International Ar+itration9 1% A0er. Re&. Int>l Ar+. C19 C11)% (200)).

53 VAJIL 127
,nd of Docu-ent T 201/ -ho0!on Reuter!. Go clai0 to original '.(. 4o&ern0ent ;or:!.