## Facts

- Banco Santander, S.A. acquired Banco Popular Español, S.A. after a government-forced sale.
- Mexican nationals and two investment firms initiated or sought to intervene in foreign proceedings challenging the legality of the acquisition.
- The applicants sought discovery in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from Santander and its New York-based affiliate, Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS), concerning BPE’s financial condition and the acquisition.
- Much of the requested material related to due diligence and was located outside the United States.
- Santander argued the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it and that § 1782 did not permit compelled production of documents located abroad.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1782’s requirement that the respondent “resides or is found” in the district extends to the full limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process, and whether Santander was subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York.
2. Whether § 1782 categorically bars compelled production of documents located outside the United States.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that “resides or is found” in § 1782 extends to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.
- Applying that standard, the court held Santander’s contacts with the Southern District of New York were insufficient for personal jurisdiction, so discovery from Santander was properly denied.
- The court held there is no per se bar to ordering production under § 1782 of documents located outside the United States.
- The court affirmed the order compelling SIS to produce documents located abroad, holding the district court acted within its discretion.
- The district court’s orders were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1782’s “resides or is found” requirement is satisfied when the respondent is subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum consistent with due process; it does not extend beyond constitutional limits.
- Section 1782 does not impose a categorical territorial limit on the location of discoverable materials; courts may order production of documents held abroad.
- Whether to allow discovery (including production of foreign-located documents) remains a discretionary determination for the district court, subject to ordinary discovery management concerns.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed denial of § 1782 discovery against a foreign bank for lack of personal jurisdiction, while confirming that § 1782 can compel production of documents located outside the United States when the respondent is subject to the court’s jurisdiction and the district court, in its discretion, permits such discovery.


In re Application of del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019)