## Facts

- Patricio Clerici, a Panamanian citizen residing in Miami, previously sued NoName Corporation in Panama and obtained an attachment of NoName’s property.
- The Panamanian court later dismissed Clerici’s suit for failure to prosecute and vacated the attachment; the dismissal was affirmed on appeal in Panama.
- NoName then brought an incidental damages proceeding in the same Panamanian court based on harm allegedly caused by Clerici’s suit and the attachment.
- The Panamanian court entered a civil money judgment against Clerici for damages and costs.
- In post-judgment proceedings, the Panamanian court sought Clerici’s sworn answers to written questions about his assets and financial affairs to aid collection under Panamanian law.
- The Panamanian court issued a letter rogatory to a U.S. court requesting assistance under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
- The United States applied in the Southern District of Florida for an order compelling Clerici to provide sworn answers; the district court granted the application and appointed an Assistant U.S. Attorney to obtain the sworn responses.
- Clerici moved to vacate the § 1782 order; the district court denied the motion, and Clerici appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1782’s statutory prerequisites were satisfied, including whether sworn answers about assets sought for post-judgment collection are “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.”
2. Whether the request improperly sought to enforce a foreign money judgment in the United States rather than to obtain “evidence” within § 1782.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion under the Intel factors in granting assistance.
4. Whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 limited or barred the discovery sought through the § 1782 proceeding.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Clerici’s motion to vacate and upheld the § 1782 discovery order.
- The Panamanian court qualified as a “foreign tribunal,” Clerici resided in the district, and the requested sworn answers were evidence sought “for use” in a foreign proceeding, even though the proceeding was post-judgment.
- The request was treated as evidence-gathering for use by the Panamanian court in its own post-judgment process, not as an attempt to execute the foreign judgment in U.S. courts.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion under the Intel considerations; the record did not show circumvention of foreign limits or undue burden.
- Rule 69 did not control because it governs execution of U.S. judgments and did not restrict a § 1782 order assisting a foreign tribunal where the foreign judgment was not domesticated in Florida.

## Legal Principles

- 28 U.S.C. § 1782 permits a district court to order a person residing in the district to provide testimony or other evidence for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal.
- A foreign tribunal’s post-judgment collection-related process conducted under the tribunal’s supervision can qualify as a “proceeding” for § 1782 purposes.
- A § 1782 request seeking sworn asset information may be proper evidence-gathering even if the ultimate aim is to aid collection in the foreign forum; domestication of the foreign judgment in the United States is not a prerequisite to granting § 1782 assistance.
- After statutory prerequisites are met, the court exercises discretion guided by Intel factors, including participant status, receptivity, avoidance of circumvention of foreign proof-gathering limits, and burden.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that § 1782 authorizes U.S. judicial assistance to obtain sworn financial disclosures for use in a foreign court’s post-judgment proceedings and that granting such assistance is discretionary, not barred by Rule 69, and not transformed into U.S. judgment enforcement merely because the discovery may help collect a foreign judgment abroad.


In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007)