repeatedly broadened.

repeatedly broadened.

AMD petitioned the California court reebok easy tone pursuant to § 1782(a). which provides, in pertinent part, that a federal court "may order" a person "resid|ing)"or"found" in the district to provide testimony or produce documents "for use in a pro¬ceeding in a foreign or international reebok easytone tribunal...pursuant to a letter rogatory is¬sued, or request made, by a foreign reebok or international tribunal or upon the jimmy choo appli¬cation of any interested person." The district court denied the petition, but the zigtech Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that 5 1782(a) au- (homed but manolo blahnik did not require (he district court (o aid AM I) in its efforts to get dis¬covery from Intel.
Section 1782(a) was enacted by Congress to assist "foreign tribunals" in ob¬taining evidence in the United States. manolo blahnik shoes The original purpose of the statute was to allow (he federal courts to assist with the examination of witnesses in foreign courts through letters rogatory issued by diplomatic officials. Over time, (hrough a scries of amendments the provision was repeatedly broadened.
Citing division among the circuits www.love-aaron.com/ on whether § 1782(a) contains a foreign discoverability requirement, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Cour( also considered splits among the circuits on several other issues, including: (1) who qualities as an "interested person" within the meaning of the statute; (2) does the foreign proceeding for which the discovery is requested need to be pending or imminent; and (3) do EC investigative proceedings constitute foreign "tri¬bunals.*
The Court rejected Intel's attempt to limit the reach of the statute reebok zig by. inter alia, holding that § 1782(a) did not mandate that the discovery sought be demonstrably discoverable in the foreign jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court held that one need not be a litigant to utilize 5 1782(a). and accordingly, that AMD's status as a complainant who triggered the DG investigation made it an "interested person." Because an EC complainant may submit information in support of their allegations, and seek judicial review of the EC's disposition of a complaint, the Court determined ihat an EC complainant constitutes an "in¬terested person" within the meaning of 5 1782(a). Id. at 2478. The reebok zigtech Court fur¬ther determined that the applicant for discovery' does not have to show that U.S. law would allow discovery in domestic litigation analogous to the foreign pro¬ceeding. skechers shape ups Id at 2482.
The Court also found that § 1782(a) contained no requirement tha( an ad¬judicate action ac(ually be pending or imminent Specifically, (he Cour( con¬cluded (ha( (he fact (ha( (he EC investigation had not advanced beyond (he in¬vestigative stage was not necessarily a bar (o discovery. It was sufficient (ha( a "ruling by (he Commission, reviewable by (he European courts. jimmy choo shoes was within rea¬sonable con(cmpla(ion." Id. a( 2480.
Further, (he Court cited to legislate history where the language of § 1782(a) was amended (o delete (he requirement that (he foreign proceeding at issue be "judidal," "pending" or in a "court." Based on