## Facts

- Metallgesellschaft AG (MG), a German company, was defending a breach-of-employment-contract suit brought by Siegfried Hodapp in a German labor court.
- Hodapp sought severance remuneration after his dismissal; MG asserted a German-law forfeiture defense based on Hodapp’s alleged “commercial competition” during the severance period.
- MG applied in the Southern District of New York for discovery from Hodapp under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), seeking deposition testimony and documents about the alleged competitive activities.
- The district court granted the ex parte application and issued a subpoena.
- On the scheduled compliance date, Hodapp refused to testify or produce documents, asserting a privilege under German law.
- MG moved to compel; after in-chambers argument, the district court vacated the subpoena and effectively denied discovery.
- The district court reasoned that discovery disputes should generally be handled by the foreign tribunal and that U.S. assistance should not exceed what would be available through the German court.
- MG appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) by denying discovery based on generalized comity concerns and the view that the evidence would not be obtainable through German procedures.
2. Whether § 1782 requires that requested discovery be discoverable under the law or practice of the foreign tribunal as a condition of granting U.S. discovery.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the order vacating the subpoena and denying discovery, and remanded.
- The court held that the district court abused its discretion by treating foreign discoverability and a categorical preference for foreign-court control of discovery as effectively dispositive.
- The court directed that privilege and related protections be addressed through targeted rulings and case management rather than a blanket denial of discovery.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1782 authorizes broad district-court assistance in obtaining evidence “for use” in a foreign tribunal upon application by an interested person, so long as the target is found in the district and other statutory prerequisites are met.
- Foreign discoverability is not a threshold requirement under § 1782; at most, it may be considered as a discretionary factor.
- Generalized comity concerns (e.g., that the foreign court should handle discovery as a matter of preference) are insufficient to deny an otherwise proper § 1782 application absent concrete indications that assistance would offend or undermine the foreign tribunal.
- Privilege objections, including those claimed under foreign law, should be handled through specific determinations and protective measures, not by vacating discovery wholesale.
- A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an erroneous view of the governing law or fails to account for the statute’s purposes in exercising discretion.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required reconsideration of § 1782 discovery under a framework that does not condition U.S. assistance on foreign discoverability and that addresses comity and privilege concerns through specific, tailored protections rather than categorical denial.


In re Application for an Order Permitting Metallgesellschaft AG to Take Discovery, 121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997)