Discovery

Court Holds that China’s Data Privacy Law Does Not Bar U.S. Discovery

A recent decision held that China’s new data privacy law does not bar compliance with U.S. discovery orders. In Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Syntronic AB, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero reasoned that there was no conflict between his discovery order and China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) because of an exception in the PIPL for…

Continue Reading

Highlights from the Media Coverage of ZF Automotive

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. has generated discussion, criticism, and approval in the transnational litigation and international arbitration communities. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett relied on the meaning of the term “tribunal,” specifically when paired with “foreign” or “international,” to resolve a major circuit split and…

Continue Reading

ZF Automotive: Closing a Door, Opening a Window

The Supreme Court’s decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. drew a bright line for a statute that is otherwise regulated almost entirely by judicial discretion. In a terse and unanimous opinion, Justice Barrett wrote that Section 1782 does not permit district courts to order discovery for use in private international arbitration. The…

Continue Reading

A Primer on State Law in Transnational Litigation

The procedural and substantive rules that U.S. courts apply in transnational litigation come from many sources, including the U.S. Constitution, international treaties, customary international law, federal statutes, federal rules, and federal common law (both preemptive and non-preemptive)—but also, state statutes, state rules, and state common law. This primer focuses on the underappreciated role of state…

Continue Reading

ZF Automotive: A Practitioner’s Perspective

As a practitioner in commercial litigation with an emphasis on China-related cross-border disputes, I have been eagerly anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision in ZF Automotive US Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., resolving a circuit split on the applicability of Section 1782 discovery to private international arbitration.   In this post, I share the practitioner’s perspective on what…

Continue Reading

The Dogs that Didn’t Bark in ZF Automotive

I confess I’m not big on blogs. They often do more mischief than good, and posts can distract folks from their day jobs (whether research or deaning). Then again, who can say no to a friendly request from good people like Maggie, Ingrid, Bill and John? Plus, several of us appeared in the case (George…

Continue Reading

ZF Automotive: Predictable Outcome, Lackluster Reasoning

Whatever one may think of it, the Court’s decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. is not a surprise. It reflects the forceful intervention of the U.S. Government and aligns well with the drift of the Court’s conduct of oral argument in the case. Even the constituency most apt to want to use…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Holds in ZF Automotive That Section 1782 Does Not Apply to International Arbitration

The Supreme Court held today that Section 1782 does not apply to international arbitration—neither international commercial arbitration nor investor-state arbitration. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett held that only governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies fall within the scope of the provision. Section 1782 authorizes federal district courts to order persons residing or found within…

Continue Reading

Oral Argument in ZF Automotive Generates More Confusion Than Clarity on the Availability of U.S. Discovery for Use in International Arbitration

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases asking whether U.S.-style discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is available for use in, respectively, international commercial arbitration and investor-state arbitration. These questions stem from a statutory ambiguity that has caused widespread uncertainty in international arbitration, and it may not be resolvable based on statutory interpretation or congressional intent.

Continue Reading

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk

Vanderbilt Law School
ingrid.wuerth@vanderbilt.eduEmail

William Dodge

UC Davis School of Law
wsdodge@ucdavis.eduEmail

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School
mgardner@cornell.eduEmail

John F. Coyle

University of North Carolina School of Law
jfcoyle@email.unc.eduEmail

Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
zclopton@law.northwestern.eduEmail

Noah Buyon

Duke University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Will Moon

University of Maryland
Bio | Posts

William K. McGoughran

Vanderbilt Law School
Bio | Posts

Chimène Keitner

UC Davis School of Law
Bio | Posts

Catherine Amirfar

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts

Justin R. Rassi

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts

Isabelle Glimcher

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts

Ben Köhler

Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
Bio | Posts

Aaron D. Simowitz

Willamette University College of Law
Bio | Posts

Timothy D. Lytton

Georgia State University College of Law
Bio | Posts