FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 21, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Ho no ra blePa sc o M . B owman II , Unit e d St ate s Ci rcuit Judg e fo r t

heEi ghth Circ uit , * sitti ngby designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11141

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 2 6 8 9 - CV - PCH I N R E : P A T R I C I O C L E R I C I , A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 21, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d B O W M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s c a s e i nvol ve s the a uthor i ty of f e de r a l di s tr i c tc our t s t o a s s i s ti n the pr oduc t i on of

e vi de nc e — he r e , s w or n a ns w e r s t o w r i t t e n que s t i ons — f orus e i n a fo re ig n co u rt. A p p ellan t P atricio C lerici (“C lerici”) ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s2

Ja nu ar y 27, 20 06 order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o v ac at e the di stri ctcourt ’ s O ct ob er 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 o r d e rg r a n t i n g th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n , f i l e d p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 78 2, for j ud i ci al as si st ance t o forei gn tri bu nal s. In i t s J anuary 27 , 20 06 order, the di stri ctcourtappo i nt ed an A ss i st antU ni t ed S t at es A t t orney t o o bt ai n sw orn answ er s f

rom C l er i ci t o t he qu es t i on s posed i n t he P anam ani an C ou rt ’ s l ett er r o g a t o r y . A f

t e rr e v i e w a n d o r a l a r g u me n t , w e a f f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A. Cl e r i c i ’ s L a ws u i t i n P a n a ma C le r ic i is a P a n a m a n ia n c itiz e n a n d m e r c h a n t w h o a ls o r e s id e s in M ia m i, Fl o r i d a . I n 1 9 9 8 i n Pa n a ma , Cl e r i c i i n i t i a t e d a c i v i l l a w s u i ta g a i n s tN o N a me C orpor a t i on ( “ N oN a m e ” ) a nd othe r s i n the S e c ond C our tof the C i r c ui tof

C ol on, C i v i l B ran ch , R ep u b l i c o f P an am a (“ P an am an i an C o u rt ”). A s p arto f th ese pr oc e e di ngs , C l e r i c i r e que s t e d the a t t a c hm e ntof N oN a m e ’ s pr ope r ty , w hi c h the P a na m a ni a n C our tgr a nt e d by j udi c i a l de c r e e . A s a r e s ul t , c e r t a i n pr ope r ty of N o N a m e w a s s e iz e d . T h er ea fter , o n A u g u st 2 7 , 1 9 9 9 , N o N am e f il ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss C lerici’s P a n a m a l a ws u i t , a l l e g i n g th a tC l e r i c i h a d f a i l e d t o p r o s e c u t e h i s c i v i l l a ws u i t . On F eb ru ary 1 1 , 2 0 0 0 , th e P an am an i an C o u rtg ran t ed N o N am e’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss C l e r i c i ’ s l a w s ui t , a nd the a t t a c hm e ntof N oN a m e ’ s pr ope r ty w a s va c a t e d. T heBalboas arethe leg al cur renc y of the Republic of

Panama. Onebalboa is the e quivalent 1 of one U .S. dollar. OnJ anu ary

2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , No Nam e f

i l eda s t at e c o urtp et i t i o nt o d o m es t i cat e i t s fo re i gn 2 judgme nt in the state circ uit court for theEleventh Judicial Ci rcuit of F lorida. NoNa me attac hed 3 reso l u t i o n o f C l eri ci ’ s ci v i l l aw su i tw as ap p eal ed an d affi rm ed b y P an am a’ s F i rst S u p e r io rC o u r t o f

J u s tic e o n N o v e m b e r1 3 , 2 0 0 0 . B . No Na me ’ s P r o c e e d i n g s i n P a n a ma O n A pr i l 27, 2001, N oN a m e f i l e d a n i nc i de nt a l pr oc e e di ng i n the P a na m a ni a n C our tc l a i m i ng da m a ge s a r i s i ng f r om C l e r i c i ’ s c i vi l l a w s ui ta nd the at t ach m en tp ro ceed i n g . S p eci fi cal l y, N o N am e al l eg ed th ati tw as a n ew b u si n ess i n P a na m a a nd i n the pr oc e s s of e xpa ndi ng, buttha tC l e r i c i ’ s l a w s ui t“ c ha nge d the c o m m e r c ia l im a g e o f

th e c o m p a n y .” N o N a m e a lle g e d th a t C le r ic i’s la w s u it ne ga t i ve l y i m pa c t e d N oN a m e ’ s c r e di tw i th va r i ous ba nks a nd i t s i m a ge i n the c o m m u n ity , r e s u lte d in th e d e n ia l o f its r e q u e s t f

o ra n in c r e a s e in c r e d it, a n d le d to l ostsa l es and p rofi t s. O n S ept em ber 27, 20 02 , the P anam ani an C ou rtent er ed Ju d i ci al D ecree N o . 1 1 6 6 , i n w h i ch C l eri ci w as “ co n d em n [ed ] . . . t o p ay” N o N am e, i n b al b o as, 1 , 9 9 6 , 5 9 8 . 0 0 i n d am ag es an d 2 9 4 , 5 8 9 . 7 0 i n co st s. T h u s, 1 N oN am e obt ai ned a si za bl e f orei gn j ud gm entagai nstC l er i ci i n P anam a. I ti s undi s put e d tha tN oN a m e ’ s f or e i gn j udgm e nta ga i ns tC l e r i c i ha s not b e e n d o me s t i c a t e d a n d i s n o tc u r r e n t l y e n f o r c e a b l e i n Fl o r i d a . W h i l e N o N a me f ile d a d o m e s tic a tio n a c tio n , N o N a m e n e v e rp u r s u e d it. 2to its petit ion, inter alia, (1) a copy of Judi cial De cre e No. 1166 in Spanish, and (2) a certified translation of the de cre e. On Septembe r 1, 2004, Clerici filed obje ctions to the rec ognition and enforceme nt of NoName’s alleg ed foreign judgme nt ag ainst him, arguing, inter alia, that NoNamefailed to provethat the dec reedocument wa s a foreign judgme nt beca use it was not authenticated, that Clerici never re ceive d notice of theattempt to domesticate the judgment, and that the Panamania

n Court lacked subje ct matter jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Acc ording to C leri c i, t

heF lorida

statec ourt

sc he du le d a

he ari ngon

thematte r, but N oN amec anc e lle d it , and the he aringhas not bee n resc heduled. 4 S ubs e que nt l y , on J a nua r y 27, 2005, N oN a m e f i l e d a pos t -

j udgm e ntpe t i t i on i n the s a m e P a na m a ni a n C our tw he r e N oN a m e ha d obt a i ne d the s i z a bl e j udgm e nt agai nstC l er i ci . N oN am e’ s post -j ud gm entpet i t i on w as ent i t l ed “ O rdi nary P r oc e e di ng I nvol vi ng M or e T ha n a C e r t a i n A m ount( I nc i de ntof D a m a ge s ) P e t i t i on (C om pl em ent ar y E xecut i on ). ” I n i t s pe t i t i on, N oN a m e r e que s t e d tha tthe P a na m a ni a n C our t“ be gi n the pr oc e dur e c om pl e m e nt a r y t o the e xe c ut i on” of i t s j udgm e nt“ pur s ua ntt o the p ro v isio n s o f A rticle 1 0 4 9 an d 1 0 5 0 o f th e J u d icial C o d e” o f P an am a. N o N am e’s p e titio n id e n tif

ie d th e f o llo w in g q u e s tio n s to b e a s k e d to C le r ic i r e g a r d in g h is as se t s a nd ot her f

i nanci al m att er s “ i n t he R epub l i c of P anam a or i n any ot her part of the w orl d”: 1. W ha tpr ope r t i e s ( r e a l orpe r s ona l ) , c r e di t s , s us t e na nc e m e a ns or a n y o th e rs o u r c e o f

in c o m e d id h e [ h a v e ] o n A p r il 2 7 , 2 0 0 1 in the R e publ i c of

P a na m a ori n a ny othe rpa r tof the w or l d? 2. W ha tpr ope r t i e s ( r e a l orpe r s ona l ) , c r e di t s , s us t e na nc e m e a ns or a ny othe rs our c e of

i nc om e di d he [ ha ve ] on S e pt e m be r27, 2002 i n the R e publ i c of P a na m a ori n a ny othe rpa r tof the w or l d?“A letter rog atory is the reque st by

a domestic c ourt to a foreign court to takeevidenc e 3 from a c ertain witness.” Intel Corp. v. Advanc ed Micro D evice s, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 248 n.1, 124 S. Ct . 2466, 2473 n.1 (2004) ( quotation marks and alteration omitted). 5 3. W hattra nsfe rs , conv ey ance s or don at i on s has he m ade a ft er A pr i l 27, 2001 a nd S e pt e m be r27, 2002 i n the R e publ i c of P a na m a ori n a ny othe rpa r tof the w or l d? P l e a s e e xpl a i n the reaso n s fo r th ese co n v eyan ces. 4 . W h a t is th e a m o u n t o f y o u rp a tr im o n y to th e d a te o f th is pr oc e e di ng? 5. H ow a nd by w ha tm e a ns a r e y ou goi ng t o f ul f i l l the obl i ga t i ons a c qui r e d by m e a ns of

R e s ol ut i on N o. 1166 of S e pt e m be r27, 2002, a nnounc e d by the S e c ond C our tof the C i vi l C i r c ui tof C o lo n ( R e p u b lic o f

P a n a m a ) , w h e r e in y o u a r e c o n d e m n e d to p a y a n a m o u n tg r e a t e rth a n T WO MI L L I ON B AL B OA S ( B /2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 ) ( le g a l c u r r e n c y o f th e R e p u b lic o f

P a n a m a ) to th e c o rp o r a tio n N O N A M E C O R P .? 6 . A re yo u i n b an k ru p t cy? P l ease ex p l ai n th e reaso n s. 7. H ow m any nat i on al i t i es or ci t i ze nshi ps do you h ave up t o d at e? 8 . In w h atco u n tri es d o yo u fi l e i n co m e-t ax retu rn s? 9 . W ith w h a t f

in a n c ia l e n titie s ( b a n k s , in v e s tm e n t h o u s e s , to m en t i o n so m e) i n th e w o rl d h av e yo u h ad o r h av e b u si n ess r e la tio n s o ra r e la tio n a s a c lie n t? B e c a us e C l e r i c i r e s i de d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , N oN a m e ’ s pe t i t i on s ugge s t e d tha tthe P an am an i an C o u rto b t ai n th i s ev i d en ce t h ro u g h th e i ssu an ce o f a l et t er ro g at o ry. 3 T h e P a n a m a n ia n C o u r t g r a n te d N o N a m e ’s p e titio n , f in d in g th a t the pet i t i on i s bas ed i n t he prov i si on s of A rt i cl e 104 9 o f the Judi ci al C o d e , a llo w in g th e e x e c u ta n t, w h e n th e o b lig a tio n is n o t p a id w ith inTh e on ly signif ic ant dif ferenc e is that th e Panamania n Co ur t ame nd e d th e qu e sti on s in 4 order to refle ct that Octobe r 10, 2002, wa s the date of the claimed oblig ation and the date from wh ic h Cl e ri c i c ou ld b e qu e sti on e d a bo ut h is f ina nc ia l de a lin g s. 6 th e r e s p e c tiv e te r m , to in te r r o g a te th e d e b to r , o rr e q u e s t th e ju d g e to d o it, in o r d e rth a t u n d e ro a th h e m a y a n s w e rth e q u e s tio n s m a d e in r e l a t i on t o hi s pr ope r t i e s , r i ght s , c r e di t s , s us t e na nc e m e a ns , s our c e of i nc om e , a s f

r om the da t e of

thi s c l a i m e d obl i ga t i on. B e c a u s e C le r ic i r e s id e d in F lo r id a , th e P a n a m a n ia n C o u r t is s u e d a le tte rr o g a to r y to th e “J u d ic ia l A u th o r itie s o f th e C ity o f

M ia m i” r e q u e s tin g a s s is ta n c e w ith ob t ai ni ng answ er s f

rom C l er i ci , w hi l e und eroath, t o N oN am e’ s propo se d qu es t i on s. T he P anam ani an C ou rt ’ s l ett errogat ory s t at ed thatthe evi dence ob t ai ned “ w i l l be used i n t he ci vi l proces s bef ore thi s c ou rt , ” a nd the P anam ani an C our tc i t e d a s a uthor i ty f ori t s r e que s tthe I nt e r - A m e r i c a n C onve nt i on R e ga r di ng L ett er s R og at ory ( “ the C on vent i on ”) . T he qu es t i on s l i st ed i n t he P anam ani an C our t ’ s l e t t e rr oga t or y w e r e s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rt o the que s t i ons pr opos e d by N oN am e. 4 C . S ec ti on 17 82 A p p l i cati on i n D i st ri ct C ou rt O n O c t obe r11, 2005, the U ni t e d S t a t e s f i l e d a n e x pa r t e a ppl i c a t i on i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da , pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 7 8 2 , fo r an o rd er ap p o i n t i n g an A ssi st an tU n i t ed S t at es A t t o rn ey as a c om m i s s i one rf

orthe purpos e of

obt a i ni ng the e vi de nc e r e que s t e d by the P anam ani an C ou rti n i t s l ett errogat ory. S ec t i on 17 82 (a ) provi des thatthe di stri ctSe c tio n 1 78 2( a) p ro vid e s: 5 [t ]he district court of the district in which a person resides or is found ma y order him to give his testimony or statement or

to producea docume nt or other thingfor use in a proc eedingin a fore ign or international tribunal, includingcriminal investigations conducted be foreformal a ccusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter

rog atory issued, or re quest made, by a foreign or international tribunal or upon the a

pplication of any

interested person and may direc t that the testimony or statement beg iven, or the document or other thingbe produc ed, before a person appointed by the cour t. By virtue of his appointment, the pe rson appointed has pow er to a dminist er a ny nece ssary

oath and takethe testimony or state me nt. Th e orde r m ay pre sc ribethepra c tic e and proc e dure , whic h ma

y bein whole or pa

rt the pra ctice a

nd proce dure of

the fore ign c ountry

or the international tribunal, f

or takingthe testimony

or statement or

producingthe document or othe r thing . To the extent that the order does not presc ribe otherwise, thetestimony

or statement shall be taken, a nd the document or

other thing produced, in a ccordancewith the Fe deral Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). As noted e arlier , see supra note 2, NoN ame did initiate a domestication action in Florida but then aba ndoned that ac tion. The fac t that NoName ha s attempted anothe r means of obtaining e videncefrom Clerici doe s not precludethe subsequent request for assistance under § 1782. 7 c our tw he r e C l e r i c i r e s i de s “ m a y or de rhi m t o gi ve hi s t e s t i m ony or s t a t e me n t. . . f

o ru s e i n a p r o c e e d i n g i n a f o r e i g n . . . tr i b u n a l . ” 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 7 8 2 (a ). O n O cto b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d istrict co u rt g ra n ted th e g o v er n m en t’ s

5 § 1 78 2 app l i ca t i on and app oi nt ed a c om m i ss i on er“ t o t ake s uch st eps a s a re ne c e s s a r y t o obt a i n the e vi de nc e i n c onf or m i ty w i th the L e t t e r s R oga t or y . ” T he c our t - a ppoi nt e d c om m i s s i one rthe n s e nta l e t t e rt o C l e r i c i r e que s t i ng tha the s i tf or a d ep o si t i o n t o an sw er t h e P an am an i an C o u rt ’ s q u est i o n s. O n D e c e m be r27, 2005, C l e r i c i f i l e d a m e m or a ndum i n oppos i t i on t o the g o v ern m en t ’ s ap p l i cat i o n . T h e d i stri ctco u rtco n stru ed C l eri ci ’ s m em o ran d u m as a m ot i on t o va c a t e i t s pr e vi ous or de rgr a nt i ng the § 1782 a ppl i c a t i on a nd a ppoi nt i ng8

a co m m i ssi o n er. In th e m o t i o n , C l eri ci assert ed th atN o N am e’ s j u d g m en tag ai n st h im is in v a lid , is b e in g c h a lle n g e d in P a n a m a , a n d in a n y e v e n t, is u n e n f o r c e a b le in F l or i da be c a us e i tha s notbe e n dom e s t i c a t e d. C l e r i c i a r gue d tha tthe a ppl i c a t i on s houl d be de ni e d be c a us e ( 1) the P a na m a ni a n C our t ’ s l e t t e rr oga t or y doe s not c ont a i n the ne c e s s a r y doc um e nt a t i on unde rthe t e r m s of the C onve nt i on; a nd (2) § 17 82 ca nn otbe used t o enforce afore i gn j ud gm entpu rs uantt o a l ett er rogat ory. C l er i ci al so ar gu ed that , even i f § 17 82 autho ri ze d t he re qu es t ed as si st ance , the di stri ctcourtshou l d, i n i t s di sc re t i on , decl i ne t o g ra ntj ud i ci al a s s i s t a nc e be c a us e ( 1) the l e t t e rr oga t or y i s a n a t t e m ptt o e nf or c e a f or e i gn j udgm e nttha tha s notbe e n dom e s t i c a t e d, a nd the r e f or e , i s une nf

or c e a bl e ; a nd ( 2 ) th e a p p lic a tio n is “u n d u ly in tru s iv e .” In re spon se , the go vernm entar gu ed thati t s app l i ca t i on for j ud i ci al as si st ance w as prop er l y m ade pursuantt o § 17 82 despi t e the cont entof the P anam ani an C ou rt ’ s l ett errogat ory. T he go vernm entexpl ai ned t hat , al tho ug h t he l ett er r oga t or y c l a i m e d t o be s e ntunde rthe t e r m s of the C onve nt i on, “ [ a ] s a m a t t e rof co m ity a n d as sistan ce to fo re ig n li ti g an ts,” itg en er ally trea ted su ch “m islab el[e d ]” r e que s t s f

ora s s i s t a nc e a s r e que s t s m a de pur s ua ntt o § 1782. T he gove r nm e nta l s o e m pha s i z e d tha tthe P a na m a ni a n C our tw a s not r e que s t i ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te nf or c e the f

or e i gn j udgm e nt . R a the r , theIt is not clear whe ther the Pana manian Court’s letter

rog atory complied with the terms of 6 the Convention. Neve rtheless, weneed not reac h that question beca use weconcludethat the district court prope rly

treated the g overnme nt’s application as a § 1782 application for

judicial assistance . There fore , like the district court, wereje ct Clerici’s a rgument on appeal that the Panamania

n Co ur t’ s le tte r rog ator

y wa s invalid

be c a us e it did n ot i nc lud e c e rt a in atta c hments alleg edly require d under theConvention. 9 g o v e r n m e n t p o in te d o u t th a t th e P a n a m a n ia n C o u r t w a s s e e k in g o n ly a s s is ta n c e in obt a i ni ng e vi de nc e a nd tha tthi s w a s a pr ope rus e of § 1782. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed C l er i ci ’ s m ot i on t o v ac at e. F i rs t , the di stri ctcourt fo u n d th at, “ [n ]o tw ith stan d in g th e f o rm u se d to d ra ft th e P an am an ian [C ]o u rt’s r e que s t , ” the a ppl i c a t i on f orj udi c i a l a s s i s t a nc e w a s f i l e d pur s ua ntt o § 1782, a nd th e r e f o r e , d id n o t h a v e to c o m p ly w ith th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th e C o n v e n tio n . N e x t, 6 the di stri ctcourtre

j ec t ed C l er i ci ’ s a rgum entthat§ 1 78 2 w as bei ng used t o enforce a f orei gn j ud gm entthrou gh a l ett errogat ory. Inst ea d, the di stri ctcourtfoun d t hat the § 1 78 2 app l i ca t i on and exh i bi t s “ dem on stra t e c l ea rl y thatthe P anam ani an [ C ]o u r t is s e e k in g a s s is ta n c e in o b ta in in g ‘a s w o r n s ta te m e n t’ f r o m [ C le r ic i]: it is no tre qu es t i ng that[the di stri ctcourt ] enforc e the j ud gm entN oN am e r ec ei ved agai nsthi m . ” T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthi s w as a proper re qu es tun der § 1 7 8 2 f o ra s s is ta n c e in p r o c u r in g e v id e n c e . F in a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c lin e d to exer ci se i t s di sc re t i on t o d eny the re qu es t ed as si st ance , no t i ng thatC l er i ci st i l l w as “f r e e to a r g u e a g a in s t a d o m e s tic a tio n o f th e P a n a m a n ia n ju d g m e n t in F lo r id a s ta te c o u r t a n d to p r o c e e d w ith h is a p p e a l o f th e f o r e ig n ju d g m e n t in P a n a m a .”10

A s t o t he sc op e of the evi dence re qu es t ed, the di stri ctcourtno t ed thatC l er i ci h a d a r g u e d , in th e a lte r n a tiv e , th a t it w a s “u n d u ly in tru s iv e ” b u t h a d “f a ile d to id e n tif y s p e c if ic a lly th e te r m s o f

th e r e q u e s t w h ic h h e c o n te n d s a r e o v e r ly b r o a d , a l e ga l ba s i s f

orthe s e c ont e nt i ons , a nd how the s c ope of the r e que s ts houl d be na r r ow e d. ” T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n de ni e d C l e r i c i ’ s “ ‘ undul y i ntrus i ve ’ a r gum e nt w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t in d ic a te d th a t if C le r ic i w is h e d to p u r s u e th is ar gu m ent , C l er i ci “ shal l fi l e a m ot i on t o l i m i tthe sc op e of the re qu es ton or before M on day, F ebruary 6, 20 06 . ” C l e r i c i di d notf

i l e a m ot i on t o l i m i tthe s c ope of the r e que s t . R a the r , on F e b ru a r y 9 , 2 0 0 6 , C le r ic i tim e ly a p p e a le d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is m ot i on t o va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e a r l i e ror de rgr a nt i ng the gove r nm e nt ’ s § 1782 a p p lic a tio n f

o rju d ic ia l a s s is ta n c e . C le r ic i a ls o m o v e d f o ra s ta y p e n d in g a p p e a l, w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW B e gi nni ng i n 1948, “ C ongr e s s s ubs t a nt i a l l y br oa de ne d the s c ope of a s s i s t a nc e f

e de r a l c our t s c oul d pr ovi de f orf or e i gn pr oc e e di ngs , ” pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1782. I nt e l C orp. v. A dva nc e d M i c r o D e vi c e s , I nc . , 542 U . S . 241, 247- 48, 124 S . C t . 2466, 2473 ( 2004) ( r e vi e w i ng a tl e ngth the 150- y e a rhi s t or y of c ongr e s s i ona l e f

f or t s t o pr ovi de j udi c i a l a s s i s t a nc e t o f or e i gn tr i buna l s a nd11

a m e ndm e nt s de s i gne d t o br oa de n the s c ope of § 1782) . “ T he hi s t or y of S e c t i on 1782 r e ve a l s C ongr e s s ’ w i s h t o s tr e ngthe n the pow e rof di s tr i c tc our t s t o r e s pond t o r e que s t s f

ori nt e rna t i ona l a s s i s t a nc e . ” L o K a C hun v. L o T o, 858 F . 2d 1564, 1 5 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . B e c a u s e “C o n g r e s s h a s g iv e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r ts s u c h b r o a d d is c r e tio n in grant i ng j ud i ci al as si st ance t o forei gn coun tri es , thi s c ou rtm ay ov er turn t he di stri ct co u rt ’ s d eci si o n o n l y fo r ab u se o f d i scret i o n . ” U n i t ed K i n g d o m v . U n i t ed S t at es, 2 3 8 F .3 d 1 3 1 2 , 1 3 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . T h is r e v ie w is

“ extre m el y l i m i t ed and h i gh l y def er ent i al . ” I d. F urther, “ [t ] hi s def er ent i al st andard i s i dent i ca l t o t hatused i n revi ew i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordi nary d is c o v e r y ru lin g s .” I d . H ow ever , “ t o the ext entthe di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on i s bas ed on an i nt erpret at i on of l aw , ou r r evi ew i s de nov o. ” I d. at13 19 n. 8. T hu s, thi s C ou rt r e v ie w s d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f a tr e a ty o ra f

e d e r a l s ta tu te such as § 1 78 2. In re C om m ’ r’ s S ub po enas , 32 5 F . 3d 12 87 , 12 92 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ).A re quest for judicial assistance f rom a foreign tribunal ca

n be, but is not require d to be, 7 made through the issuanceof a le tter rog atory . See 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) . See supra note 5 (quoting28 U.S.C. § 1782(a)). 8 12 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S e c t i on 1782 A di stri ctcourthas the aut ho ri ty t o g ra ntan appl i ca t i on for j ud i ci al a s s i s t a nc e i f

the f ol l ow i ng s t a tut or y r e qui r e m e nt s i n § 1782( a ) a r e m e t : ( 1) the re qu es tm ustbe m ade “ by a f orei gn or i nt ernat i on al tri bu nal , ” or by “ any i nt er es t ed pe r s on” ; ( 2) the r e que s tm us ts e e k e vi de nc e , w he the ri tbe the “ t e s t i m ony or

7 s t a t e m e nt ” of

a pe r s on orthe pr oduc t i on of “ a doc um e ntorothe rthi ng” ; ( 3) the evi dence m ustbe “ for use i n a proceedi ng i n a fore i gn or i nt er nat i on al tri bu nal ”; a nd ( 4) the pe r s on f

r om w hom di s c ove r y i s s oughtm us tr e s i de orbe f ound i n the d i s tr i c to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tru l i n g o n th e a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s s i s t a n c e . 2 8 U . S. C. § 1782( a ) . I f

the s e r e qui r e m e nt s a r e m e t , the n § 1782 “ a uthor i z e s , butdoe s not 8 r e qui r e , a f

e de r a l di s tr i c tc our tt o pr ovi de a s s i s t a nc e . . . . ” I nt e l , 542 U . S . a t255, 12 4 S . C t . at24 78 ; se e a l so U ni t ed K i ng do m , 23 8 F . 3d at13 19 (“ [A ] di stri ct court ’ s c om pl i ance w i th a § 1 78 2 requesti s notm andat ory. ”) . H e r e , C l e r i c i doe s notdi s put e tha tthe P a na m a ni a n C our ti s a f or e i gn tr i buna l ortha the r e s i de s w i thi n the S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da . T he r e f

or e , the f ir s t a n d f o u r th r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o ra p r o p e rr e q u e s t u n d e r§ 1 7 8 2 a r e m e t.The other case s cited in Clerici’s brie f, seeIn re L etter Rog atory I ssued by the Second 9 Pa rt o f th e I I ICi v ilRe g ’ l C o urt o f Ja b a qu ar a/S a

u d e , Sa o Pa

u lo , B r az. , N o . M 1 3 - 7 2 , 2 0 0 1 WL 1033611 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2001); In re Civil Rogatory L etters F iled by

Consulate of the U.S. of Mex., 640 F. Supp. 243 (S.D. Tex . 1986), are equally distinguishable a

nd war rant no fur

ther 13 A s t o t he se cond st atut ory r equi re m ent

— thatthe re qu es tm ustse ek e vi de nc e — C l e r i c i a r gue s tha tthe P a na m a ni a n C our ti s nots e e ki ng e vi de nc e , but ra ther i s a t t em pt i ng t o enforce i t s j ud gm entthrou gh a § 17 82 re qu es t . W e di sa gree b ec au se th e P an am an ian C o u rt as k ed fo r a ss istan ce in o b tain in g o n ly C lerici’s s w or n a ns w e r s t o que s t i ons r e ga r di ng hi s a s s e t s a nd othe rf i na nc i a l m a t t e r s . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e c ogni z e d thi s ke y di s t i nc t i on a nd pr ope r l y c onc l ude d tha tthe re qu es tfor a ss i st ance w as l i m i t ed t o see ki ng evi dence fr om C l er i ci , and t here fore , w as prop erun der § 17 82 . U nl i ke the re qu es t s f or j ud i ci al as si st ance i n t he ca se s c i t e d i n C l e r i c i ’ s br i e f

, s e e , e . g. , I n r e L e t t e rR oga t or y I s s ue d by the S e c ond P a r tof the I I I C i vi l R e g’ l C our tof J a ba qua r a / S a ude , S a o P a ul o, B r a z . , N o. 01- M C - 212, 2 0 0 2 W L 2 5 7 8 2 2 ( E .D .N .Y . F e b . 6 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( d e n y in g r e q u e s t to o r d e rju d g m e n tde bt ort o de pos i t$8, 642, 802. 94 i nt o a n a c c ountw i th the c our t ) ; T a c ul , S . A . v. H a r t f or d N a t ’ l B a nk & T rus tC o. , 693 F . S upp. 1399, 1399- 1400 ( D . C onn. 1988) ( qua s hi ng w r i tof

e xe c ut i on a ga i ns tthe a s s e t s of j udgm e nt - de bt ori s s ue d by the c l e r k ba s e d on a l e t t e rr oga t or y ) , the P a na m a ni a n C our tne ve rr e que s t e d tha tthe d i stri ctco u rtseq u est er, l ev y o n , o r sei ze co n tro l o f C l eri ci ’ s asset s o r o th erw i se h e lp e n f o r c e N o N a m e ’s ju d g m e n t. T h e P a n a m a n ia n C o u r t r e q u e s te d o n ly 9discussion. Clerici has not cited any leg al authority

that sug g ests obtaining e vidence“in aid of e xec uti on ” of

a fo re ign ju dgme nt i s th e le g a l e qu ivale nt o f e xec uti ngon that f ore ign ju dgme nt. 14 as si st ance i n o bt ai ni ng evi dence— sw orn answ er s f rom C l er i ci t o w ri t t en que s t i ons — a nd thi s i s the pr i m a r y purpos e of § 1782. T he r e f

or e , the s e c ond r e q u ir e m e n t f

o ra p r o p e rr e q u e s t u n d e r§ 1 7 8 2 is m e t. A s t o the thi r d s t a tut or y r e qui r e m e nt , w e r e j e c tC l e r i c i ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe re qu es t ed evi dence w as no t“ for use i n a proceedi ng ” bef ore the P anam ani an C ou rt . H er e, there i s a proceedi ng curr ent l y pendi ng before the P anam ani an C ou rt tha ta l l ow s N oN a m e orthe P a na m a ni a n C our tt o que s t i on C l e r i c i unde roa th a bout hi s pr ope r t i e s , r i ght s , c r e di t s , s us t e na nc e m e a ns , a nd othe rs our c e s of i nc om e f

r om the dat e of hi s c ou rt -order ed ob l i gat i on . H ad C l er i ci been res i di ng i n P anam a, N oN am e or the P anam ani an C ou rtw ou l d h ave been abl e t o i nt er rogat e C l er i ci d ir e c tly w ith th e q u e s tio n s p r o p o s e d b y N o N a m e . B e c a u s e C le r ic i w a s r e s id in g in F l or i da , how e ve r , the P a na m a ni a n C our ti s s ue d a l e t t e rr oga t or y s e e ki ng in tern atio n al as sistan ce in o rd er to o b tain th is ev id en ce . T h e P an am an ian C o u rt’s l et t er ro g at o ry i t sel f st at ed th atth i s ev i d en ce “ w i l l b e u sed i n th e ci v i l p ro cess before thi s c ou rt . ” S uch a requesti s c l ea rl y w i thi n t he ra ng e of di sc ov er y a uthor i z e d unde r§ 1782 a nd c om por t s w i th the purpos e of the s t a tut e t o pr ovi de assi st an ce t o fo rei g n tri b u n al s. G iv e n th e p e n d in g p r o c e e d in g b e f o r e th e P a n a m a n ia n C o u r t, C le r ic i isClerici re lies on two decisions from the Sec ond Circuit, Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmeria n, 10 Inc., 154 F .3d 24 (2d Cir. 1998), and I n re L etters Rog atory

I ssued by Dir. of Inspection of Gov’ t of India, 385 F.2d 1017 ( 2d Cir. 1967), for theargument that a “procee ding,”for pur poses of § 1782, must be a proc eedingthat is “adjudicative in nature.”We find these ca ses unper suasive and, for the re asons stated a

bove, dec line to impose a requirement that the f oreign proce edingbe adjudicative in nature. In concludingin Intel that § 1782 is not li mited to procee dings that arepending , the 11 Supreme Court empha siz ed that, in 1964, “Congress de leted the words ‘in any judicial proce edingpendingin any court in a f

oreign country ,’ and replac ed them with the phra se ‘in a p r o c e e d i n gi na

f o r e i gno r i nt e r n at i o n a ltri b un a l . ’ ” 5 4 2 U . S . at2 4 8 - 4 9 , 1 2 4 S . C t . at2 4 7 4 . In 1996, Congress furthe r ame nded § 1782(a) to add, a fter theref erence to “ fore ign or

international tribunal,” the w ords “includingcriminal investig ations conducte d before for mal accusation.” I d. at 249, 124 S. Ct. at 2474. 15 r e duc e d t o a r gui ng tha ta “ pr oc e e di ng” m e a ns a n a dj udi c a t i ve pr oc e e di ng, a nd thu s, N oN am e’ s post -j ud gm entpet i t i on re gardi ng a j ud gm entthatal re ady has been r e n d e r e d is n o t a “p r o c e e d in g ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e s ta tu te . T h is a r g u m e n t is al so w i tho utm er i tfor s ever al re as on s. F i rs t , § 1 78 2 o nl y s t at es thatthe evi dence 10 m us tbe “ f

orus e i n a pr oc e e di ng, ” a nd nothi ng i n the pl a i n l a ngua ge of § 1782 re qu i re s thatthe proceedi ng be adj ud i ca t i ve i n n ature. S ee 28 U . S . C . § 1 78 2(a) . In fa ct , the st atut e s peci fi ca l l y provi des thatthe evi dence obt ai ned t hrou gh § 1 78 2 can be used i n “ cr i m i nal i nv es t i gat i on s c on du ct ed before f orm al ac cusa t i on , ” e ven th o u g h s u c h in v e s tig a tio n s a r e n o t a d ju d ic a tiv e p r o c e e d in g s . I d . ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . S eco n d , th e S u p rem e C o u rth as reco g n i zed th e “ b ro ad ran g e o f d i sco v ery” autho ri ze d u nd er§ 1 78 2 and has hel d t hat§ 1 78 2 i s notl i m i t ed t o p roce edi ng s that are p en d i n g o r i m m i n en t . In t el , 5 4 2 U . S . at2 5 9 , 1 2 4 S . C t . at2 4 8 0 ; see al so 11 H ans S m i t , A m er i ca n A ss i st ance t o L i t i gat i on i n F orei gn and Int er nat i on alBe foreIntel, this circuit had imposed the a dditional requireme nt that “the district cour t 12 must decide whe ther the e videncewould be discove rablein the fore ign c ountry before granting assistance .” In re Reque st for Assistancefrom Ministry of L eg al Aff

airs of Trinidad and To bag o, 84 8 F .2 d 1 15 1, 11 56 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 8) , a

brog ate d b y

Inte l, 5 42 U. S. at 25 9- 62 , 1 24 S. Ct . at2 4 8 0 - 8 2 ; s e e a l s o C o mm ’ r ’ s S u b p o e n a s , 3 2 5 F . 3 d

at1 2 9 3 ( c i t i n gT ri n i d a d

an d T o b a g o ) ; Lo Ka Chun, 858 F .2d at 1566 (re lying on Trinidad and Tobag o). Howe ver, othe r circuits had not imposed a foreign-discoverability require ment. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 253 n.7, 124 S. Ct . at 2476 n.7 (listing circuit decisions). In Intel, the Supreme Court re solved the circuit conflict, holding that § 1782 does not impose a foreign-discoverability require ment. I d. at 253, 124 S. Ct. at 2476. The SupremeCourt emphasized that § 1782(a) itself shields privileg ed material. I d. at 260, 124 S. Ct . at 2480. The Supre me Court then conc luded that “[b]eyond shielding material safe guarde d by

an applica

ble privileg e, howe ver, nothingin the textof § 1782 limits a district co urt ’s p ro d

u ct i o n -o rd er

auth o ri ty t o m at er i al s th atco u l d

b e d i s co v er edi nth e f

o re i gn jurisdiction if the materials were loc ated there.” I d. 16 Tr i b u n a l s : Se c t i o n 1 7 8 2 o f Ti t l e 2 8 o f

th e U. S. C. Re v i s i t e d , 2 5 Sy r a c u s e J . I n t ’ l L. & C om . 1, 9 (19 98 ) ( “ T he pu rpose of S ec t i on 17 82 i s t o l i bera l i ze the as si st ance gi ven t o forei gn and i nt er nat i on al tri bu nal s. ”) . R ather, the proceedi ng for w hi ch di s c ove r y i s s oughtne e d onl y be “ w i thi n r e a s ona bl e c ont e m pl a t i on. ” I nt e l , 542 U . S . a t259, 124 S . C t . a t2480. H e r e , the pr oc e e di ng a c tua l l y w a s f i l e d be f or e the l ett errogat ory w as even i ss ued, and t he thi rd st atut ory r equi re m entfor a prop er r e q u e s t u n d e r§ 1 7 8 2 is s a tis f ie d . B ec au se all fo u r s tatu to ry re q u irem en ts ar e m et, th e P an am an ian C o u rt’s r e que s tf ora s s i s t a nc e i n obt a i ni ng C l e r i c i ’ s s w or n a ns w e r s f orus e i n the proceedi ng i n P anam a w as prop erun der § 17 82 . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt 12 ha d a uthor i ty t o gr a ntthe § 1782 di s c ove r y a ppl i c a t i on. E ven so, “ a di stri ctcourti s notre qu i re d t o g ra nta § 17 82 (a ) di sc ov er y a ppl i c a t i on s i m pl y be c a us e i tha s the a uthor i ty t o do s o. ” I nt e l , 542 U . S . a t264,The district cour t’s order notes that Clerici did not argue the f irst and sec ond 13 Intel fac tors before the district cour t. As to the third fac tor, the district court pointed out that

17 124 S . C t . a t2482- 83 ( “ [ A ] di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c om pl i a nc e w i th a § 1782 r e que s ti s not m a n d a to r y .” ( q u o tin g U n ite d K in g d o m , 2 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 9 ) ) . O n c e th e p r im a f a c ie r e qui r e m e nt s a r e s a t i s f

i e d, the S upr e m e C our ti n I nt e l not e d the s e f a c t or s t o be c ons i de r e d i n e xe r c i s i ng the di s c r e t i on gr a nt e d unde r§ 1782( a ) : ( 1) w he the r“ the p e r s o n f r o m w h o m d is c o v e r y is s o u g h t is a p a r tic ip a n t in th e f o r e ig n p r o c e e d in g ,” b e c a u s e “th e n e e d f

o r§ 1 7 8 2 ( a ) a id g e n e r a lly is n o t a s a p p a r e n t a s it o r d in a r ily is w he n e vi de nc e i s s oughtf r om a nonpa r t i c i pa nt ” ; ( 2) “ the na tur e of the f or e i gn tr i buna l , the c ha r a c t e rof the pr oc e e di ngs unde r w a y a br oa d, a nd the r e c e pt i vi ty of the forei gn go vernm entor the courtor agency abroad t o U . S . fe dera l -c ou rtj ud i ci al a s s i s t a nc e ” ; ( 3) “ w he the rthe § 1782( a ) r e que s tc onc e a l s a n a t t e m ptt o c i r c um ve nt f or e i gn pr oof

- ga the r i ng r e s tr i c t i ons orothe rpol i c i e s of a f or e i gn c ountr y orthe U ni t e d S t a t e s ” ; a nd ( 4) w he the rthe r e que s ti s othe r w i s e “ undul y i ntrus i ve or bu rdensom e. ” I d. at26 4-65 , 12 4 S . C t . at24 83 . T he S up re m e C ou rti n Int el added that“ un du l y i nt rusi ve or bu rdensom e r equest s m ay be re j ec t ed or t ri m m ed. ” I d. at 2 6 5 , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 2 4 8 3 . O u rr e v ie w o f

th e I n te l f

a c to r s r e v e a ls th a t n o n e o f th e f a c to r s f a v o r s C le r ic i, a nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n gr a nt i ng the § 1782 a ppl i c a t i on. 13Cle ri c i had f a ile d to identi fy

any “proo f- g atheri ngre stric tio ns ” in t hePanamania

n Co ur t c a se that would be circumvented if the § 1782 re quest were grante d. Finally , as to the four th fac tor, thedis tric t c ourt

no te d th at Cleri c i had f

a ile d to identi fy

wh ic h p or

tio n o f t here qu e st w a s o ve rly broad a nd state how the sc ope of thereque st should be narrow ed. On a ppeal, a s in the district court, Cleric i does not appea r to addre ss the Intel fac tors. This is not surprising since thefac tors do no t f avo r C le ri c i. In ma ny § 1 78 2 c a se s, thepe rs on

from who m di sc ov e ry

is s ou ght i s a

no np artic ipa

nt i n 14 the fore ign procee ding a

nd outside the jurisdiction of the fore ign tribunal. See, e.g ., United King dom, 238 F.3d at 1314 ( seekingsensitive law enf orce ment documents possessed by the United States to be used in a c riminal prosec ution in England) ; L o Ka Chun, 858 F .2d at 1565 (see king theissuance of

subpoenas duc es tec um to residents of the United States who were non-par ty witnesses in an a ction pendingin HongKong ); Trinidad a nd Tobag o, 848 F.2d at 1152 (see king a

uthenticated c opies of bank records from non-pa rty bank). 18 A s t o the f

i r s tI nt e l f

a c t or , be c a us e C l e r i c i i s a pa r ty i n the f or e i gn pr oc e e di ng, thi s f

a c t ornor m a l l y w oul d f

a vorC l e r i c i a nd s ugge s ttha t§ 1782 as sistan ce is n o t n ec es sa ry . S ee In tel, 5 4 2 U .S . at 2 6 4 , 1 2 4 S . C t. at 2 4 8 3 (“A fore i gn tri bu nal has j uri sdi ct i on ov ertho se appeari ng before i t , and can i t se l f order the m t o pr oduc e e vi de nc e . ” ) . I n thi s c a s e , how e ve r , the f i r s tf a c t ordoe s notf

a vor 14 C l er i ci beca use C l er i ci has l ef tP anam a a nd the P anam ani an C ou rtca nn otenforce i t s or de ra ga i ns tC l e r i c i di r e c t l y w hi l e C l e r i c i i s i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . G i ve n the pa r t i c ul a rf

a c tua l c i r c um s t a nc e s i n thi s c a s e , the f i r s tI nt e l f

a c t ordoe s notf

a vor C le r ic i. A s to th e s e c o n d a n d th ir d I n te l f a c to r s , th e r e is n o th in g in th e r e c o r d to s ugge s ttha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve de c l i ne d t o gr a ntthe § 1782 a ppl i c a t i on b a s e d o n th e n a tu r e o f

th e f o r e ig n tr ib u n a l o rth e c h a r a c te ro f th e p r o c e e d in g s in P a na m a , ortha tthe P a na m a ni a n C our t ’ s r e que s ti s m e r e l y a n a t t e m ptt o c i r c um ve nt19

fore i gn proo f- gatheri ng re stri ct i on s. R ather, these fa ct ors a l l supp ortthe di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on t o g ra ntthe § 1 78 2 app l i ca t i on gi ven t hatthe forei gn tri bu nal here i s the P anam ani an C ou rtand t he P anam ani an C ou rti t se l f i ss ued t he l ett errogat ory req u est i n g assi st an ce d u e t o C l eri ci ’ s p resen ce i n th e U n i t ed S t at es. F in a lly , a s to th e f

o u r th I n te l f

a c to r— w h e th e rth e § 1 7 8 2 r e q u e s t is u n d u ly in tru s iv e — th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rg r a n tin g th e § 1 7 8 2 a p p lic a tio n s p e c if ic a lly i nd i ca t ed thati f C l er i ci w i shed t o p ursue hi s “ un du l y i nt rusi ve” a rgum ent , C l er i ci s h o u ld f ile a m o tio n to lim it d is c o v e r y . C le r ic i n e v e rd id s o a n d in s te a d c h o s e to a p p e a l th e g r a n t o f

a n y d is c o v e r y w h a ts o e v e r . O n a p p e a l, a s in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, C l e r i c i doe s noti de nt i f

y the t e r m s of

the w r i t t e n r e que s ttha ta r e ove r l y br oa d or as se rtho w the sc op e of the re qu es tshou l d b e nar row ed. T hu s, w e, l i ke the di stri ct court , have no occa si on t o add re ss the sc op e of the P anam ani an C ou rt ’ s di sc ov er y r e q u e s t. I n s um , the di s tr i c tc our tha d a uthor i ty t o gr a ntthe § 1782 a ppl i c a t i on, a nd C l e r i c i ha s nots how n tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n doi ng s o. B . F ed er al R u l es of C i vi l P roce d u re C le r ic i a lte r n a tiv e ly a s s e r ts th a t, e v e n if th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d a u th o r ity to gr a ntthe di s c ove ry a ppl i c a t i on unde r§ 1782, R ul e 69( a ) of the F e de r a l R ul e s of C i vi l P roce du re bars any § 17 82 di sc ov er y i n t hi s c as e. M ore s peci fi ca l l y, C l er i ci20

cont ends that(1) a ny evi dence m ustbe ob t ai ned i n acc ordance w i th t he F eder al R ul e s of C i vi l P r oc e dur e ; ( 2) F e de r a l R ul e 69( a ) i s a ppl i c a bl e be c a us e the P a n a m a n ia n C o u r t is s e e k in g d is c o v e r y to a id N o N a m e in th e e x e c u tio n o f its j u d g me n t ; a n d ( 3 ) n o d i s c o v e r y i s a u th o r i z e d u n d e rRu l e 6 9 ( a ) u n t i l N o N a me obt a i ns a va l i d, dom e s t i c a t e d j udgm e nti n thi s c ountr y . W e a gr e e tha tthe di s c ove r y rul e s i n the F e de r a l R ul e s of C i vi l P r oc e dur e a ppl y he r e butc onc l ude th atR u l e 6 9 (a) d o es n o t . W e ex p l ai n w h y. T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a uthor i ty t o or de rC l e r i c i t o gi ve t e s t i m ony “ f orus e i n a p r o c e e d in g in a f

o r e ig n . . . tr ib u n a l” s te m s f r o m § 1 7 8 2 . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 7 8 2 ( a ) . S e c t i on 1782( a ) the n pr ovi de s tha t , i n i t s or de rgr a nt i ng § 1782 a s s i s t a nc e , the di s tr i c tc our t“ m a y pr e s c r i be the pr a c t i c e a nd pr oc e dur e . . . f ort a ki ng the te s tim o n y o rs ta te m e n t o rp r o d u c in g th e d o c u m e n t o ro th e rth in g .” I d . ( e m p h a s is a dde d) . T hi s “ pr a c t i c e a nd pr oc e dur e ” m a y be “ i n w hol e orpa r tthe pr a c t i c e a nd pr oc e dur e of

the f or e i gn c ountr y orthe i nt e r na t i ona l tr i buna l . ” I d. T o the e xt e nt thatthe di stri ctcourtdo es no tot herw i se pres cr i be the pract i ce and p roce du re , § 1782( a ) pr ovi de s tha t“ the t e s t i m ony ors t a t e m e nts ha l l be t a ke n, a nd the d o c u m e n t o ro th e rth in g p r o d u c e d , in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e .” I d . H er e, the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdi d n otpres cr i be the “ prac t i ce and p roce du re ”As set forth e arlier , the cour t-appointed c ommissi oner se nt a letter to Cleric i reque sting 15 that hesit fo r a depo sition

to a ns wer t hePanamania

n Co ur t’ s wri tte n q

ue sti on s. As noted ea

rlier, Cleric i does not contend on a ppeal that the Pana

manian Court’s 16 discovery reque st is unduly

intrusive or otherwise violates the proc edure s in Rules 26-36. Rather, Cleric i’s sole argument is that Federal Rule 69(a) bar s the takingof any testimony

from him untila ft e r N oN amedo me sti c ate s it s f ore ign judgme nt. Rul e 69 (a), e nti tle d “ Exe c uti on ,”prov ide s a s f oll ow s: 17 Process to enf

orcea judgment for the pa y ment of money

shall be a writ of e xec uti on , unle ss t

hec ourt dire c ts o therw ise . T heproc e dureon e xec uti on , in proce eding s supplementary to and in aid of a

judgme nt, and in proce eding s on 21 for t aki ng C l er i ci ’ s t es t i m on y. T hu s, un der § 17 82 , thi s t es t i m on y m ustbe t aken

“ i n acc ordance w i th the F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re . ” S ec t i on 17 82 (a ) r ef er s t o the F e de r a l R ul e s , notf orw he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tc a n or de rC l e r i c i t o gi ve a ny t e s t i m ony , butonl y f

orthe pr oc e dur e s orm a nne ri n w hi c h tha tt e s t i m ony i s t o be ta k e n . O nc e di s c ove r y i s a uthor i z e d unde r§ 1782, the f e de r a l di s c ove r y rul e s , F e d. R . C i v. P . 26- 36, c ont a i n the r e l e va ntpr a c t i c e s a nd pr oc e dur e s f orthe t a ki ng of t es t i m on y a nd the prod uct i on of do cum ent s. F or exam pl e, R ul e 26(a)( 5) aut ho ri ze s the t a ki ng of

t e s t i m ony by de pos i t i on upon w r i t t e n que s t i ons , a nd R ul e 31 15 prov i des the spec i fi c pra ct i ce s a nd procedures f or t aki ng depo si t i on s upo n w ri t t en q u e s tio n s . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 6 ( a ) ( 5 ) , 3 1 .

16 I n c ontr a s t , R ul e 69( a ) pr ovi de s the pr oc e s s by w hi c h a j udgm e ntc r e di t or c a n e nf or c e a m one y j udgm e nta nd a uthor i z e s pos t - j udgm e ntdi s c ove r y i n a i d of e xe c ut i on of

tha tj udgm e nt . F e d. R . C i v. P . 69( a ) . R ul e 69( a ) i t s e l f doe s not 17and in aid of e x ecution shall be in a ccordancewith the prac tice and procedure of

thestatein whic h th e dis tric t c ourt is h e ld, e xistin gat th e tim e there me dy is so ught, e xcept t

hat any statut e of theUn ite d St ate s g ov e rn s to thee xtent th at it is applicable . In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment cre ditor or a succe ssor in interest whe n that interest appe ars of rec ord, may

obtain discovery from a ny pe rs on , in c ludingthejudgme nt d ebto r, in t hemann e r p ro vid e d in

the se rules or in the ma

nner provided by

the pra ctice of

the state in which thedistrict court is held. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 69(a) (empha sis added). Thefirst sentenc e of Rule 69( a) provides that the proc e ss t o e nf

orc e a mon e y judgme nt i s “ a

writ o f e xec uti on .”Th e se c on d s e ntenc e of Rul e 69(a) g overns the e x ecution proc edureand mandates adhe renc e to state-la w execution proce dures f

or levying on or

seizing control of

assets. As stresse d earlier, the Panamanian Court is not ex ecutingon the judgment, but is seekingtestimony about where Clerici’ s assets are located in Pana

ma or in other c ountries. Thus, the first two sente nces do not a pply . However, the third sentenc e authorizes a judgme nt cre ditor to obtain post-judgment discove ry from any person usingall the discover y device s provided in the F ederal Rules or by state pra ctice. See Fe d. R. Civ. P . 69 cmt. 1970 amendment. 22 pr e s c r i be a pr a c t i c e a nd pr oc e dur e f orga the r i ng e vi de nc e , butgi ve s the j udgm e nt cr edi t or the choi ce of fe dera l or st at e di sc ov er y rul es . R ul e 69(a) si m pl y a ut ho ri ze s a s e t t i ng, pos t -

j udgm e nte xe c ut i on, i n w hi c h di s c ove r y m a y t a ke pl a c e , notthe s p e c if ic m a n n e ro rp r o c e d u r e s in w h ic h te s tim o n y s h o u ld b e ta k e n o rd o c u m e n ts s houl d be pr oduc e d. I d. B e c a us e § 1782( a ) r e f e r s t o the F e de r a l R ul e s onl y f orthe m anner or procedure i n w hi ch evi dence i s t o b e obt ai ned, and R ul e 69(a) pres cr i bes n o s u c h m a n n e ro rp r o c e d u r e , R u le 6 9 ( a ) is in a p p lic a b le to § 1 7 8 2 o r d e r s . E v en as su m in g ar g u en d o th at th e d isco v er y a u th o rize d b y th e d istrict co u rt’s § 1782 or de rha d t o c om pl y w i th R ul e 69( a ) , C l e r i c i ’ s t e s t i m ony s t i l l c oul d be t aken i n t hi s c as e a s l on g as i tw as t aken i n acc ordance w i th t he fe dera l di sc ov er y rul es . R ul e 69(a) i t se l f e xp re ss l y per m i t s a “ j ud gm entcr edi t or” t o o bt ai n d i sc ov er y23

“ [ i ] n a i d of

the j udgm e ntore xe c ut i on, ” a nd gi ve s the “ j udgm e ntc r e di t or ” the c hoi c e of f e de r a l ors t a t e di s c ove r y pr oc e dur e s t o c onduc tpos t - j udgm e nt di s c ove r y . F e d. R . C i v. P . 69( a ) ; s e e a l s o F . D . I . C . v. L e G r a nd, 43 F . 3d 163, 171 (5th C i r. 19 95 ) ( re

j ec t i ng j ud gm entdebt or’ s a rgum entthat“ st at e procedural rul es a p p ly to th e d e te r m in a tio n o f th e p o s t- ju d g m e n t d is c o v e r y is s u e ” ) . T h u s , s im ila rto § 1782, R ul e 69( a ) gi ve s a j udgm e ntc r e di t orthe opt i on of t a ki ng a j udgm e nt d e b to r ’s te s tim o n y in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e f e d e r a l d is c o v e r y ru le s . N o th in g in R u le 69 (a ) c on fl i ct s w i th § 17 82 . In any e vent , the § 1 78 2 requestfor j ud i ci al as si st ance he r e w a s m a de by the P a na m a ni a n C our ta f t e rN oN a m e ha d obt a i ne d a j udgm e nt agai nstC l er i ci . A ta m i ni m um , no thi ng i n R ul e 69(a) re qu i re s dom es t i ca t i on of a f or e i gn j udgm e ntbe f

or e di s c ove r y i s pe r m i t t e d unde r§ 1782 f orus e i n a p r o c e e d in g in a f

o r e ig n tr ib u n a l. M or e ove r , i m pos i ng a r e qui r e m e nttha ta f or e i gn j udgm e ntf

i r s tm us tbe dom e s t i c a t e d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s be f or e a § 1782 a ppl i c a t i on f ora s s i s t a nc e c a n be g r a n te d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to a f o r e ig n c o u r t w o u ld r e n d e r§ 1 7 8 2 u n n e c e s s a r y in m any c i rc um st ance s. F or exam pl e, i n t hi s c as e a ft erC l er i ci ’ s t es t i m on y i s t aken r e g a r d in g h is a s s e ts in P a n a m a ( if h e h a s a s s e ts in P a n a m a ) , N o N a m e m a y b e a b le to e x e c u te o n its ju d g m e n t in P a n a m a a n d h a v e n o n e e d to d o m e s tic a te its j u d g m en ti n th i s co u n try.24

I n s um , R ul e 69( a ) doe s notba rthe di s c ove r y a uthor i z e d i n thi s c a s e by the di stri ctcourt ’ s § 17 82 order j ustbeca use N oN am e’ s f orei gn j ud gm enthas notbeen d o m es ti ca ted in th e U n it ed S tates. H o w ev er , w e d o ag re e th at u n ti l N o N am e’s fore i gn j ud gm enthas bee n d om es t i ca t ed i n t hi s c ou nt ry , N oN am e c anno tse qu es t er , l e vy on, ors e i z e c ontr ol of , a ny a s s e t s of

C l e r i c i i n thi s c ountr y . F ur the r , a l though w e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng the § 1782 a ppl i c a t i on, C l e r i c i r e m a i ns f r e e to a r g u e a g a in s t d o m e s tic a tio n o f th e P a n a m a n ia n C o u r t’s ju d g m e n t in th is c ountr y w he n a nd i f

N oN a m e pur s ue s dom e s t i c a t i on.

I V . CONCL US I ON F or al l of these re as on s, w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s J anuary 27 , 20 06 order denyi ng C l er i ci ’ s m ot i on t o v ac at e the di stri ctcourt ’ s O ct ob er12 , 20 05 order gr a nt i ng the gove r nm e nt ’ s § 1782 a ppl i c a t i on. AF F I RME D.