28 U.S.C. § 1782

Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court. By virtue of his appointment, the person appointed has power to administer any necessary oath and take the testimony or statement. The order may prescribe the practice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or producing the document or other thing. To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing in violation of any legally applicable privilege.

(b) This chapter does not preclude a person within the United States from voluntarily giving his testimony or statement, or producing a document or other thing, for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal before any person and in any manner acceptable to him.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 949; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 93, 63 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 88–619, § 9(a), Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 997; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XIII, § 1342(b), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 486.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 Act

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 649–653, 701, 703, 704 (R.S. §§ 871–875, 4071, 4073, 4074; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, § 1, 19 Stat. 241; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 291, 36 Stat. 1167; June 25, 1936, ch. 804, 49 Stat. 1921).

Sections 649–652 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., applied only to the District of Columbia and contained detailed provisions for issuing subpoenas, payment of witness fees and procedure for ordering and taking depositions. These matters are all covered by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26–32.

Provisions in sections 649–652 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to the taking of testimony in the District of Columbia for use in State and Territorial courts were omitted as covered by section 14–204 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., and Rules 26 et seq., and 46 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Only the last sentence of section 653 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is included in this revised section. The remaining provisions relating to depositions of witnesses in foreign countries form the basis of section 1781 of this title.

Sections 701, 703, and 704 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were limited to “suits for the recovery of money or property depending in any court in any foreign country with which the United States are at peace, and in which the government of such foreign country shall be a party or shall have an interest.”

The revised section omits this limitation in view of the general application of the last sentence of section 653 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., consolidated herein. The improvement of communications and the expected growth of foreign commerce will inevitably increase litigation involving witnesses separated by wide distances.

Therefore the revised section is made simple and clear to provide a flexible procedure for the taking of depositions. The ample safeguards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26–32, will prevent misuse of this section.

The provisions of section 703 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for punishment of disobedience to subpoena or refusal to answer is covered by Rule 37(b)(1) of Federal Rules or Civil Procedure.

The provisions of section 704 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with respect to fees and mileage of witnesses are covered by Rule 45(c) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.

1949 Act

This amendment corrects restrictive language in section 1782 of title 28, U.S.C., in conformity with original law and permits depositions in any judicial proceeding without regard to whether the deponent is “residing” in the district or only sojourning there.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–106 inserted “, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation” after “proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” in first sentence.

1964—Pub. L. 88–619 substituted provisions which empowered district courts to order residents to give testimony or to produce documents for use in a foreign or international tribunal, pursuant to a letter rogatory, or request, of a foreign or international tribunal or upon application of any interested person, and to direct that the evidence be presented before a person appointed by the court, provided that such person may administer oaths and take testimony, that the evidence be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless the order prescribes using the procedure of the foreign or international tribunal, that a person may not be compelled to give legally privileged evidence, and that this chapter doesn’t preclude a person from voluntarily giving evidence for use in a foreign or international tribunal, for provisions permitting depositions of witnesses within the United States for use in any court in a foreign country with which the United States was at peace to be taken before a person authorized to administer oaths designated by the district court of the district where the witness resides or is found, and directing that the procedure used be that generally used in courts of the United States, in text, and “Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals” for “Testimony for use in foreign countries” in section catchline.

1949—Act May 24, 1949, struck out “residing” after “witness”, and substituted “judicial proceeding” for “civil action” after “to be used in any”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 685 cases (225 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: In Re: Comm'r's Subpoenas. United States of Am., 325 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2003).
In Re: Comm'r's Subpoenas. United States of Am., 325 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). · cites it 44× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1782 . Not only can a foreign tribunal bring a request in the form of a “letter rogatory,” but section 1782 has been amended to also allow similar requests for assistance to be brought by “interested persons” including foreign governments in foreign investigations…”
In Re Application of Alves Braga, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 15× “Braga obtained an order from this Court permitting him to obtain discovery, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 . Based on that order, Dr.”
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004). · cites it 8× “In pursuit of that complaint, AMD applied to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, invoking 28 U. S. C. § 1782 (a), for an order requiring Intel to produce potentially relevant documents.”
In Re: Patricio Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007). · cites it 10× “Appellant Patricio Clerici (“Clerici”) appeals the district court’s January 27, 2006 order denying his motion to vacate the district court’s October 12, 2005 order granting the government’s application, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 , for judicial assistance to foreign…”
Ilyas Khrapunov v. Pavel Prosyankin, 931 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 10× “PROSYANKIN SUMMARY * Discovery The panel vacated the district court’s grant of an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for discovery of evidence for use in a foreign tribunal and remanded for further proceedings.”
Application of Consorcio Ecuatoriano De Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 685 F.3d 987 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 17× “CONECEL filed an application in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery for use in foreign proceedings in Ecuador.”
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Chubb Ins. Co. of Canada, 384 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 11× “At issue is the proper interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 , which establishes a mechanism by which United States district courts may provide discovery assistance to litigants in foreign proceedings.”
In Re Veiga, 746 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 9× “Before the Court are applications by Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) and two of its attorneys, Rodrigo Pérez Pallares (“Pérez”) and Ricardo Reis Veiga (“Veiga”) (collectively, “Applicants”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (a) for the issuance of subpoenas requiring Respondent…”
Application of Consorcio Equatoriano De Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. Jet Air Serv. Equador S.A., 747 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 8× “CONECEL filed an application in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery for use in foreign proceedings in Ecuador.”
Cpc Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 34 F.4th 801 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 6× “’s application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to compel Apple, Inc. to turn over documents, which CPC seeks to use in a potential lawsuit in Germany against an Apple affiliate, and remanded for further proceedings.”
Ht S.R.L. v. Velasco, 125 F. Supp. 3d 211 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 31× “On April 10, 2015, Petitioner filed an ex parte Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.”
In re Hulley Enters., Ltd., 358 F. Supp. 3d 331 (S.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 18× “have applied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for leave to serve subpoenas on respondents White & Case, LLP, and on White & Case, LLP's Chairman Hugh Verrier.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) — 5 cases
In Re: Leonardo Poblete (D.N.J. 2024).
In Re: Al Fayed v. (4th Cir. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.