WHERE A PARTY SEEKS EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 1782 FOR USE IN A FOREIGN PROCEEDING, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ADDRESSES JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE--HERE, APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER GRANTING THE [section] 1782 APPLICATION; INSTEAD, APPELLANT APPEALED THE DENIAL OF ITS SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO QUASH

Citation metadata

Date: October-December 2017
From: International Law Update(Vol. 23, Issue 4)
Publisher: American Bar Association
Document Type: Article
Length: 469 words
Lexile Measure: 1220L

Document controls

Main content

Article Preview :

The following case involves a jurisdictional issue regarding Section 1782 discovery. Furstenberg Finance SAS and Marc Batallion ("Applicants") applied to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [section] 1782 for an order requiring Litai Assets, LLC ("Litai" or "Appellant") to produce certain discovery for use in a Luxembourg proceeding. The district court granted the request and issued subpoenas, Litai moved to quash. Litai now appeals the district court's denial of its motion to quash.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms because it concludes that an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena is a final, appealable order in proceedings brought under [section] 1782. Other Circuits...

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A574852004