## Facts

- The Republic of Kazakhstan and Biedermann International were parties to a private arbitration before the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
- Kazakhstan applied in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
- Kazakhstan sought to depose and obtain documents from Murdock Baker, Jr., a Texas resident who was not a party to the arbitration, concerning matters related to Biedermann.
- The district court granted the § 1782 application and ordered the deposition and document production.
- The district court denied Biedermann’s request for reconsideration and motion for an emergency stay.
- Biedermann filed an expedited appeal, and the Fifth Circuit stayed discovery pending appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782 authorizes a federal court to order discovery for use in a private international arbitration.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting discovery.
- The court held that § 1782 does not apply to private international arbitrations.
- The court reviewed the scope of § 1782 de novo and adopted the Second Circuit’s analysis rejecting § 1782 discovery for private arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- “Foreign or international tribunal” in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not include private, contract-based international arbitration panels.
- Where statutory language is ambiguous, courts may consider legislative history and statutory purpose to determine coverage.
- Congress’s 1964 expansion of § 1782 was understood to reach governmental, administrative, and quasi-judicial bodies, not private commercial arbitration.
- Interpreting § 1782 to permit broad discovery for foreign private arbitration would be inconsistent with arbitration’s expected limits and would create an anomaly by providing more expansive discovery than is generally available in domestic arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that § 1782 does not authorize federal-court discovery assistance for private international commercial arbitration and therefore vacated the district court’s order compelling non-party discovery for use in the Stockholm arbitration.


Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999)