## Facts

- Roz Trading Ltd., a Cayman Islands company, was involved in a joint venture with The Coca-Cola Export Company (a Coca-Cola subsidiary) and the Government of Uzbekistan.
- Roz alleged the Uzbek government forcibly seized Roz’s joint-venture interest, causing Roz’s employees to flee and leaving Roz without access to corporate documents.
- Roz alleged Coca-Cola and its subsidiary assisted the Uzbek government in removing Roz from the venture.
- Roz initiated a contract-based arbitration in Vienna before the International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber.
- Coca-Cola was not a party to the Vienna arbitration, but its subsidiary was; Roz sought documents from Coca-Cola in the Northern District of Georgia.
- Roz applied under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an order compelling Coca-Cola to produce documents for use in the Vienna arbitration.
- Coca-Cola opposed, contending the arbitral panel was not a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782 and arguing § 1782 should not reach private commercial arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether an arbitral panel administering a foreign commercial arbitration qualifies as a “foreign or international tribunal” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
2. If § 1782 applies, whether the court should exercise discretion under Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. to order discovery and, if so, on what limits.

## Decision

- The court held the Vienna arbitral panel qualified as a “foreign tribunal” under § 1782 and that the statute authorized discovery for use in the arbitration.
- The court found § 1782’s statutory prerequisites satisfied: Coca-Cola was found in the district, the materials were sought for use in the foreign proceeding, and Roz was an “interested person.”
- Applying Intel’s discretionary factors, the court granted the application because:
  - Coca-Cola was a nonparticipant in the arbitration, reducing the arbitral tribunal’s ability to compel production directly.
  - There was no showing the Vienna tribunal would be unreceptive to the evidence.
  - The request did not appear designed to evade foreign proof-gathering limits.
  - Any burden or overbreadth could be controlled by tailoring discovery consistent with the Federal Rules.
- The court ordered discovery to proceed subject to scope and relevance limitations.

## Legal Principles

- 28 U.S.C. § 1782 permits district courts to order discovery from a person found in the district for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal upon application by an “interested person.”
- “Tribunal” in § 1782 is construed broadly; absent statutory limitation, it can include arbitral bodies, including foreign commercial arbitral panels.
- In exercising § 1782 discretion, courts consider Intel factors, including: participation of the discovery target in the foreign proceeding, receptivity of the foreign decisionmaker, circumvention concerns, and whether requests are unduly intrusive or burdensome.
- § 1782 discovery is generally governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permitting courts to limit discovery to avoid undue burden and to confine production to relevant materials.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a Vienna commercial arbitral panel constituted a “foreign tribunal” under § 1782 and, after weighing the Intel factors, granted Roz’s application for document discovery from Coca-Cola with appropriate limits to control scope and burden.


In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2006)