2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-3-2009 

# C omi sion E jec ut i va Hidro elec tr v

. N ej ap a P owe r C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3518

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C omi sion Ej e c ut iva H idr oe le ctr v . N ej ap a P o we r C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 869. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/869

### NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 08- 3518 COMI SI ON EJ ECUTI VA HI DROELECTRI CA DEL RI O LEMPA
v. NEJAPA POW ER COMPANY LLC, Appe l l ant OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court fo r the Distri ct

of Delaware ( D. C. Ci vi lNo. 1- 08- m c - 000135) Distri ct Judg e: Ho n. Gregory

M. Slee t Ar gue d May

28, 2009 BE FO RE : FISHE R, CH AG AR ES and C OWEN , Cir cuit Judg es ( Fi l e d: Augus t

3, 2009 ) J oy M. Sol oway , Es q. ( Ar gue d) C. Mark Bake r , Es q. Ke vi n O’ Gorm an, Es q. Andr e w P. Pr i c e , Es q. Fulbr i ght & J awor s ki 1301 Mc Ki nne y

Str e e t , Sui t e 5100 Hous t on, TX 77010 J ohn M. Se am an, Es q. Ab ram s & Last er 20 Mont c hani n Roa d, Sui t e 200 W i l m i ngt on, DE 198072



### Couns e lfor

Appe l l ant Dani e lJ . Roths t e i n, Es q. Fl e mm i ng, Zul a c k & W i l l i am s on One Li be rty

Pl a z a , 35 Fl oor

th 

### Ne w York, NY 10006 Couns e lfor

Am i c us Appe l l ant Davi d M. Ort a , Es q. ( Ar gue d) Arno ld & Porte r 55 5 1 2 Stre et , N.W .

th 

### W a s hi ngt on, DC 20004 Kar lG. Randa l l , Es q. Dona l d E. Re i d, Es q. M o rris, N ich o ls, A rsh t & T unn ell 12 01 No rth M ar

ket Str ee t P. O. Box 1347 W i l m i ngt on, DE 19899 Co un se l for Ap pell ee OP INI ON COW EN, Ci r c ui t

Judge Appe l l ant Ne ja paPowe r Com pany , L. L. C. ( “NPC” ) , a

ppe a l s fr om

the or de r of the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t

Court for the Di s tr i c t

of De l awar e gr ant i ng the a ppl i c at i on for di s c ove ry a s s i s t anc e fi l e d pur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. § 1782 by

Appe l l e e Com i s i ón Eje c ut i va Hidroelé ctri ca

del Río Lem

pa (“ CE L”). NP C f

urther chal le ng es the Dis tric t Court ’s de ni a lof i t s s ubs e que nt

m ot i on for

r e c ons i de r at i on. Aft e r

the a ppe a lwa s br i e fe d on the
m e r i t s , NPC fi l e d a“ c ondi t i ona l ” m ot i on t o di s m i s s the e nt i r e a ppe a la s m oot . For

the3



### fol l owi ng r e a s ons , we wi l lgr ant thi s m ot i on, di s m i s s the a ppe a la s m oot , va c at e the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s judgm e nt , and r e m and the m att e r t o the Di s tr i c t

Court wi th i ns tr

uc t i ons th at it lik ew ise d ism iss C E L ’s § 1 7 8 2 ap p licatio nas m o o t. I . I n 1994, ElSa l va dor

author i z e d the c ountry ’ s fi r s t pr i vat e powe r

ge ne r at i on p ro j ect. C E L aw ard edth e co n tract f o r th e p ro j ect to N P C , w ithth e p arties en terin g in to a P o w er P urch ase A g reem en t (“P P A ”) an dth e p lan t co mm en cin g o p eratio n s in1 9 9 5 . C E L th enf

iledanarb itratio np ro ceed in g ag ain st N P C . T h is f irst p ro ceed in g resu ltedin
anev en tu al settlem en t b etw eenth e p arties, w h ichw as co n f irm edinanarb itratio naw ard
. P ursu an t to th is aw ard , C E L term in atedth e P P Aan den teredin to a T ran sm issio nC o st A g reem en t (“T C A ”) w ithN P C
. The TCA pr ovi de s that

di s put e s be twe e n the part i e s s ha l lbe r e s ol ve d by
ar bi tr at i on “ i n a c c or danc e wi th the the n c urr e nt Uni t e d Nat i ons Comm i s s i on on Inte rnat ional Tra de Law A rbitrati onRu le s ( ‘UNC ITRA L A rbitrati onRu le s’ ). ” ( A5 09 .) I n a ddi t i on, the “ s e at

of the ar bi tr at i on s ha l lbe Ge ne va , Swi tz e r l and, ” wi th the ar bi tr at or or “ Ar bi tr a lTr ibuna l ” r e qui r e d t o a ppl y the s ubs t ant i ve l aw of El Sa l va dor and the procedural l aw of

Sw itze rl and. (A50 9.) F o llo w in g a seco n darb itratio np ro ceed in g (w h ichw as f iledb y N P C an den d edin it s favor), NP C ser

ved C EL with a Notic e of A rbitrati ononJuly 5, 20 07 . This t

hird
ar bi tr at i on pr oc e e di ng i nvol ve s CEL’ s a l l e ge d r e fus a lt o pe r form c e rt a i n obl i gat i onsT h e o ther a p p li ca ti o n w as f il ed in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r t h e S o u thern 1 D i s t r i ctof Texas , and i tnamed E l Pas o C orpor at i on ( “El Pas o”) as t he R es pondent
. T he T exas di s t r i ctcour ti ni t i al l ygr ant ed t he appl i cat i on on J ul y8, 2008. B utE l Pas o s ought r econs i der at i on, and t he di s t r i ctcour t ul t i m at el yvaca t ed i t s ear l i eror derand quas hed any d i s c o v e r yr e l a t i n g t o t h e f o r e i g n a rb i t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g o n Nov e mbe r 2 0 , 2 0 0 8
. Se e La

4 

### unde r the TCA. An Ar

bi tr a lTr i buna lwa s c ons t i t ut e d i n May

2008, and CEL fi l e d a
co un terclaim

ag ain st N P C . T h e A rb itral T rib un al sch edu ledth e ev id en tiary h earin g to be gi n on Apr i l27, 2009. Me anwhi l e , adi s put e ar os e be twe e n the part i e s r e gar di ng the s c ope and t i m i ng of di s c ove ry i n the ar bi tr at i on pr oc e e di ng. I n e s s e nc e , CEL want e d two r ounds of d o cum en t p ro du ctio n , w h ile N P C b eliev edth at a sin g le ro un do f lim itedd isco v ery

w o u ld be s uffi c i e nt . The Ar

bi tr a lTr i buna le s s e nt i a l l y a gr e e d wi th NPC’ s di s c ove ry pos i t i on, alth o u g hit d ido f

f er a f irst ro un do f

d o cum en t requ ests lim itedto d o cum en ts “i nd is pensable ” t o the part ie s’ init ia l wri tt en subm is si on s. OnJuly 3, 20 08 , the Arbitr al Tr i buna li s s ue d Pr oc e dur a lOr de r No. 1 gove rni ng the s c ope of di s c ove ry and var i ous pr oc e dur a la s pe c t s of the ar bi tr at i on pr oc e e di ng. NPC furthe r a gr e e d t o di s pe ns e wi th a li m it ed firs t r oundof

disc ov er y . The Arbitr alTribun alac cordingly is sued Procedural Or de r No. 2 on Jul y

8, 2008. Thi s or de r , am ong othe r thi ngs , s e t

forth the de a dl i ne s for d isco v ery as w ell as f

o r th e p arties’ resp ectiv e f irst an dseco n dw rittensub m issio n s. OnJuly 3, 20 08 , CEL file d ex p arte applic at ions fo r dis covery “a ss is tance” purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 78 2. On e a pp li cati onwas fil ed in the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Co urt for the Dis tric t of D el awar e, and it nam ed NP C as the Respon dent. Th e Dis tric t 1C om i s i on E j ecut i va H i dr oel ecc t r i ca D el R i o L empa v. E l Pas o C orp. , M I SC A ct i on N o. H -0 8 -3 3 5 , 2 0 0 8 W L 5 0 7 0 1 1 9 , at * 6 (S .D . T e x . N o v . 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 ). C E L ’s a p p e a l is c u rre n tly p e n d in g b e f

o re th e F if

th C ir c u it ( C .A . N o . 0 8 -2 0 7 7 1 ).

5 

### Court gr ant e d the a

ppl i c at i on on Jul y

18, 2008, e xpr e s s l y

author i z i ng CEL t o: ( 1) “ t ake d isco v ery relatin g to th e issu es id en tif iedinC E L ’s ap p licatio nf ro m R esp o n d en t . . . i nc l udi ng i s s ui ng as ubpoe nat o NPC i n the form att a c he d a s Appe ndi x B; ” and ( 2) “ t ake the deposit ions of

the NPC re pres entati ves i dentifie d in A pp endix C and . . . to is sue a sub p o en a f

o r th e d ep o sitio no f

th ese rep resen tativ es inth e f o rm attach edas Ap p en d ix C .” (A 4 .) OnJuly 25 , 200 8, NP C f

il ed bo th a m otion f

or re consider at ion as wel l a s a no ti ce of a ppe a l
. The Di s tr i c t

Court de ni e d the r e c ons i de r at i on m ot i on on Oc t obe r 14, 2008,
and NPC r e s ponde d by

fi l i ng am ot i on for

as t ay pe ndi ng a

ppe a l , am ot i on t o qua s h the
s ubpoe na , and am ot i on for apr ot e c t i ve or de r

on Oc t obe r

21, 2008. I t

a l s o fi l e d on the
sam e d ay anam en d edn o tice o f

ap p eal, ref

eren cin g b o thth e reco n sid eratio no rd er as w ell the Jul y 18, 2008 or de r

gr ant i ng the a

ppl i c at i on. The Di s tr i c t

Court ul t i m at e l y

gr ant e d a
s t ay pe ndi ng a

ppe a land qua s he d the s ubpoe nawi thout pr e judi c e i n an or de r

e nt e r e d on Nove m be r 17, 2008. NP C repeate dly

atte m pted to ob ta in vari ou s form s of rel ie f f rom the Arbitra l Tribun alwith re spec t t o C EL ’s ac ti on s i n f eder alcourt. Th e Arbitra l Tribunal a ddre ss ed i t s r e que s t s , a s we l la s vari ous di s c ove ry i s s ue s , i n: ( 1) Pr oc e dur a lOr de r No. 3 fi l e d on Ju ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 ; (2 ) a clarif

icatio nletter d atedA u g u st 8 , 2 0 0 8 ; (3 ) P ro cedural O rd er N o . 4I n addi t i on, t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal i s s ued Pr ocedur al O r derN o. 6 on Febr uar y9, 2 2 0 0 9 . A m o n g o th e r th in g s, th e o rd e r d ism iss e d C E L ’s r e q u e sts f o r a u th o riz a tio n to pur s ue t he Fi ft h C i r cui tappea l and t o defe nd t hi s cur r entappea l
. I t fur t herr eaf fi r m ed t he A rbi t ral T ri bu nal’ s previ ou s order s and d eci si on s. 6 

### fi l e d on Nove m

be r 27, 2008; and ( 4) Pr oc e dur a lOr de r No. 5 a l s o fi l e d on Nove m be r 27, 20 08
. Th e Arbitra l Tribunal parti cularl y em ph as iz ed that

any do cum ents ob ta ined 2 

### thr ough the § 1782 pr oc e dur e s woul d have t o be s ubmi tt e d pur s uant t o the a l r e a dy
e s t abl i s he d r e qui r e m e nt s and t i m e t abl e , and i t e xpr e s s l y

r e s e rve d i t s r i ght

t o a c c e pt or rej ect any sub m ittedev id en ce. C E L f iledits S ub m issio nN o . 2 w ithth e A rb itral T rib un al b y th e ap p licab le d ead lin e o f

Ap ril 1 , 2 0 0 9 . T h is f

ilin g in clu d edb rief

in g , d o cum en ts, w itn ess statem en ts, and exp ert r eports . The evidenti ar y hearing b efore the Arbitr alTribun althen began as sch edu ledo nAp ril 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 . C E L ’s co un sel arg u edth at d o cum en ts n o t in clu d edw ith th e p arties’ p rev io u s sub m issio n s co u ldn o t b e o f f eredo r u sedb y

N P C . A f

ter th ree f u ll day s, the heari ng concluded o n A pril29 , 200 9, wh en the Arbitra l Tribunal c on firm ed that the e videntiary

part of the heari ng was now cl osed. Counselfo r both p arti es e xpr e s s e d the i r

s at i s fa c t i on wi th the way the he ar i ng ha d be e n c onduc t e d, and the Ar bi tr a lTr i buna li ndi c at e d that i t woul d work t o i s s ue i t s awar d by Jul y 2009. Wh ile th e f

o reig narb itratio np ro ceed in g w as m o v in g f o rw ard , C E L f

iledw ithth is Co urt two separate m otions to expedite . W e denie d the re spec ti ve m otions onDecem ber 15, 2008 and Mar c h 5, 2009. The Cl e rk a l s o gr ant e d on Apr i l29, 2009 the m ot i on of7



### D an iel J. R o th stein , E sq ., f o r leav e to p ro ceedas am icu s curiae, f o r leav e to f

ile
a dde ndum

att a c he d t o am i c us br i e f, for l e ave t o fi l e am i c us br i e f out of t i m e , and for leav e to f ile ano v erlen g tham icu s b rief
. O nM ay 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 , N P C f

ileda “co n d itio n al” m o tio nto d ismiss th e en tire ap p eal. It sp ecif ically ask s th is C o urt to “v acate th e d istrict co urt’s j u d g m en t an dd ism iss th is ap p eal as m o o t, an drem an dth is cau se to th e d istrict co urt w ithin stru ctio n s th at it di s m i s s CEL’ s a

ppl i c at i on a s m oot . ” ( Appe l l ant ’ s Condi t i ona lMot . at 12 ( c i t at i on o m itted ).) C E L f

iledits o p p o sitio nto th is m o tio nto d ism iss, an dam icu s so u g h t leav e to file his ownop po si ti onas well . After NP C f il ed a r eply , CEL m ov ed fo r l eave to file a sur- re ply . W e heard oralargu m ent on b oth the m otion to d is m is s andthe m erit s on M ay 28, 2009. II . T h e statute at issu e inth is ap p eal, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 7 8 2 , is en titled“A ssistan ce to fo re ign andinte rnat ional tribunals and to lit igants befo re such tribun al s. ” I t provides a s f o llo w s: ( a ) The di s tr i c t

c ourt of the di s tr i c t

i n whi c h ape r s on r e s i de s or i s found m ay or de r hi m t o gi ve hi s t e s t i m ony

or s t at e m e nt

or t o pr oduc e adoc um e nt o r o th er th in g f

o r u se ina p ro ceed in g ina f o reig no r in tern atio n al trib un al, i nc l udi ng c r i m i na li nve s t i gat i ons c onduc t e d be for e form a la c c us at i on. The or de r m ay be m a de pur s uant

t o al e tt e r

r ogat ory i s s ue d, or

r e que s t m a de , by a forei gnor inte rnat ional tribunal or upo n the applic at ion o f any inte re st ed pe r s on and m ay

di r e c t that the t e s t i m ony

or s t at e m e nt

be gi ve n, or

the doc um e nt or othe r thi ng be pr oduc e d, be for e ape r s on a ppoi nt e d by

the co urt. B y v irtu e o f h is ap p o in tm en t, th e p erso nap p o in tedh as p o w er to a dm i ni s t e r

any ne c e s s ary

oath and t ake the t e s t i m ony or s t at e m e nt . The8



### or de r m ay pr e s c r i be the pr a c t i c e and pr oc e dur e , whi c h m ay be i n whol e or part the pra ct ic e andprocedure of the fo re ign cou ntry or the i nter

nati on al tr i buna l , for

t aki ng the t e s t i m ony

or s t at e m e nt

or pr oduc i ng the doc um e nt or other thing . To the exte nt that the order do es no t pre sc ribe otherwis e, the t e s t i m ony

or s t at e m e nt

s ha l lbe t ake n, and the doc um e nt or othe r thi ng produced, i n acc ordance with the Federa l Rules of Civil Proce dure . Ap erso nm ay

n o t b e co m

p elledto g iv e h is testim o ny o r statem en t o r to p ro du ce a d o cum en t o r o th er th in g inv io latio no f any leg ally ap p licab le privil ege. (b) Thi s c ha

pt e r doe s not pr e c l ude ape r s on wi thi n the Uni t e d St at e s fr om vol unt ar i l y

gi vi ng hi s t e s t i m ony

or s t at e m e nt , or

pr oduc i ng adoc um e nt

or other thing , for use i n a proceeding in a foreign or inter nati on altribun al b e f o r e any p e r s o nan di nany

mann e r a c c e p t ab l e t o h i m. T hi s s t atut or ypr ovi s i on r ai s es a number of di ffi cul t i s s ues . I n t hi s appea l , t he par t i es ( and t he ami cus ) di s agr ee a s t o w het her§ 1782 appl i es t o pr i vat e for ei gn or i nt er nat i onal
arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ngs , es peci al l yi n l i ght of t he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntr ul i ng i n I nt el C o rp . v . A d v a n c e d M icr o D e v ice s, In c ., 5 4 2 U .S . 2 4 1 (2 0 0 4 ). N P C f u rth e r c o n ten d s th a t, even i f t he s t atut e author i zes di s coveryas s i s t ance i n t he arbi t r at i on cont ext , t he D i s t r i ct C our ts t i l l abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bygr ant i ng C E L ’ s ex par t e appl i cat i on and t hen deny i ng N PC ’ s ow n m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. N ever t hel es s , w e nee d not ( and do not ) r eac h th e s e is s u e s b e c a u s e th is e n tir e m a tte r h a s b e c o m e m o o t. T he doctr i ne of moot nes s ar i s es outof A r t i cl e I I I of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i t ut i on,
w hi ch l i m i t s t he fe der al “j udi ci al pow er ” t o t he adj udi cat i on of “c as es ” or “contr over s i es . ” See, e. g. , A m . B i r d C ons ervancyv. K empt hor ne, 559 F. 3d 184, 188 ( 3d C i r . 2009)
. “I f one orm or e of the i s s ues i nvol ved i n an ac t i on become m ootpendi ng9

appea l orpendi ng t he dec i s i on of an a ppel l at e cour t , t he adj udi cat i on of t he moot i s s ue or i s s ues s houl d be r efus ed. ” N
. J . T pk. A ut h. v. J er s eyC ent . Pow er& L i ght , 772 F. 2d 25, 30 ( 3d C i r . 1985)
. I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , t he appe l l at e cour t gener al l y“w i l l vaca t e t he d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n a n d re m a n d w ith d ire c tio n s to d ism iss th e a c tio n in o rd e r to strip th e d e c is io n o f

le g a l c o n s e q u e n c e s .” Id . a t 3 4 (c itin g U n ite d S ta te s v . M u n s in g w e a r, I n c ., 340 U
. S. 36, 40- 41 ( 1950) ) ; s ee a l s o, e. g. , G r eatW . Sugar C o. v. N el s on, 442 U
. S. 92, 92- 9 4 (1 9 7 9 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ). A l t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t ay ed i t s or dergr ant i ng C E L ’ s § 1782 appl i cat i on p e n d in g th e o u tc o m e o f th is a p p e a l, th e a rb itr a tio n p ro c e e d in g its e lf h a s m o v e d f

o rw a rd
. N PC emphasi zes t he fol l ow i ng t hr ee e vent s : ( 1) t he pas s i ng of t he A pr i l 1, 2009 deadl i ne forC E L t o fi l e w i t h t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal i t s s econd w r i t t en s ubm i s s i on and
acc om pany i ng evi dence fort he hea r i ng; ( 2) t he compl et i on of t he evi dent i ar yhear i ng conduct ed byt he A rbi t r al T r i bunal bet w een A pr i l 27, 2009 and A pr i l 29, 2009; and ( 3) t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal ’ s s t at ement att he end of t he hea r i ng t hatt he evi dent i ar yphas e of th e p ro c e e d in g w a s n o w c lo s e d
. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , CEL v i g o r o u s l yd e n i e s t h a t i t s § 1 7 8 2 a p p l i c a t i o n h a s b e c o me
m o o t. P o in tin g o u t th a t a c a se c a n n o t b e c o n sid e re d m o o t if d isc o v e ry“ c o u ld b e ‘u se d ’ in

‘ a fo r e i gn ori nt e r na t i on a l pr oc e e di ng , ’ ” ( A pp e l l e e ’ s O pp ’ n a t 3 ( qu ot i ng I nt e l , 54 2 U. S. 2 4 6 -4 7 )), C E L a rg u e s th a t itstill h a s th e a b ili tyto u se e v id e n c e o b tain e d th ro u g h its
a p p lica tio n in th e c u rre n t ar b itratio n p ro c e e d in g . T h e d isp o sitiv e iss u e a c c o rd in g lyT h is a p p ro a c h a p p e a rs c o n s is te n t w ith th e c a s e la w d is c u s s e d b yth e p a rt ie s . 3 C om par e I n r e I s hi har a C hem. C o. , 251 F. 3d 120, 125- 27 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( concl udi ng t hat appl i cat i on s eeki ng di s coveryas s i s t ance i n connec t i on w i t h pat enti nval i di t ypr ocee di ng befor e J apane s e Pat entO ffi ce ( “J PO ”) w as m ootbeca us e, among ot hert hi ngs , t her e w as evi dent l yno m et hod underJ apane s e l aw byw hi ch appl i canton i t s ow n coul d us e new evidence in forei gn proceed i ng aft er J P O con du ct ed ev i den t i aryheari ng and becau se di s t r i ctcour tnei t hercons i der ed, norw as as ked byappl i cantt o cons i der , fi l i ng of new i nval i di t ypr ocee di ng) , over r ul ed on ot hergr ounds byI nt el , 542 U
. S. at253- 54, 259, and In re E u rom ep a, S
. A
. , 1 5 4 F . 3 d 2 4 , 2 8 -30 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ) (aff ir m ing d istri ct co u rt ’s d i s mi s s a l o f

§ 1 7 8 2 a p p l i c a t i o n a s mo o t b e c a u s e , a mo n g o t h e r t h i n g s , F r e n c h S u p r e me C ou rtrefuses t o h ear and co nsi der new evidence an d F rench S up rem e C ou rtother w i se di s pos ed of a ppeal ) , w i t h I n r e G r upo Q um m a, S. A
. , N o. M . 8- 85, 2005 W L 937486, at * 2 -* 4 (S .D .N .Y . A p r. 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 ) (g ra n tin g § 1 7 8 2 a p p lica tio n f iled in c o n n e c tio n w ith M exi can c i vi l cour tpr ocee di ng even though evi dence per i od had al l egedl yexpi r ed beca us e, i nt eral i a, appl i cantw as as ki ng M exi can c our t forr ul i ng al l ow i ng addi t i onal evi dence and t her e w as di s agr eementoverpr opert r ans l at i on and meani ng of M exi can c o u rt ’s o rd e rs ). 10 app ears t o b e w hetherC E L has any real op po rtun i t yt o int roduce or ot herw i se use evi dence obt ai ned pur s uantt o § 1782 i n t he cur r ent a rb itratio n p ro c e e d in g . C E L tu rn s to 3 t w o pr ocedur al m echa ni s m s : ( 1) t he “r eopeni ng” pr ocedur e es t abl i s hed byA r t i cl e 29( 2) of t he U N C I T R A L A rbi t r at i on R ul es ; and ( 2) t he “r evi s i on” pr ocedur e ava i l abl e under S w i ss pr oced ural l aw . W e, ho w ever, m ust rej ect bo t h o f i t s t heo ri es. In iti a lly , C E L ’s v a rio u s a rg u m e n ts a re th e m se lv e s u n d e rc u t b yso m e sta tem e n ts it pr evi ous l ym ade t o t hi s C our ti n s uppor t of i t s uns ucce s s ful m ot i ons t o expedi t e. For in sta n c e , ita sk e d u s to e x p e d ite th e a p p e a l o n th e g ro u n d s th a t: [F] r om a pr act i cal s t andpoi nt , abs entan expe di t ed appe al , t he s t ayof t he o rd e r g ra n tin g th e d is c o v e ry th re a te n s to e f f e c tiv e ly o v e rt u rn th is d e c is io n . W i t houtan O r derfr om t hi s C our t expedi t i ng t he br i efi ng s chedul e and al l ow i ng fora dec i s i on on t he mer i t s i n t i m e t o compl et e pr oduct i on and revi ew of the subp oen aed d ocu m ents bef or e the Pendi ng A r bi t r at i on on11

Apr i l27, 2009 , t hi s appea l w i l l become m oot , an d C E L w ill b e irre p a ra b ly har m ed. (A p p e llee ’s M o t. t o E x p e d ite A p p e a l at 6 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ).) O n th e o th e r h a n d , it s expedi t i on fi l i ngs neverm ent i oned anypr ocedur es for“r eopeni ng” t he arbi t r at i on hear i ng
o r “ re v isin g ” th e a rb itratio n a w a rd . A t th e v e rylea st, C E L ’s p rio r sta tem e n ts a p p e a r to
c a ll i n to q u e stio n its c u rre n t th e o rie s a n d p ro v id e so m e a d d iti o n a l su p p o rt f o r o u r u lti m a te f in d in g o f m o o tn e ss . S e e Ish ih a ra , 2 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 (n o tin g th a t ap p lica n t p re v io u sly
r epr es ent ed t o C our tt hati tw oul d be unabl e t o us e di s coveryaft erevi dent i ar yhear i ng
o c c u rr e d ). I n anycas e, C E L t ur ns t o t he U N C I T R A L A rbi t r at i on R ul es t o cont end t hat , even t hough t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal not ed t hatt he evi dent i ar yphas e w as cl os ed att he end of t he h e a r i n g , CEL s t i l l h a s a n o p p o r t u n i t yt o i n t r o d u c e n e w ev i d e n c e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g . CEL p o in ts to A rticle 2 9 (2 ), w h ich e x p re ss lysta tes th a t “‘ [ t]h e a rb itral trib u n a l m a y , if it
cons i der s i tnece s s ar yow i ng t o exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s , deci de, on i t s ow n orupon appl i cat i on of a pa r t y , t o r eopen the hea r i ngs atanyt i m e bef or e t he aw ar d i s m ade. ’ ” (A pp el l ee’s O pp ’n at6. ) W e, ho w ever, rej ect t his “reopen i ng ” t heo ry , pri m ari l ybecau se of t he pas tand curr entci r cumst ance s of t he for ei gn arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng i t s el f. C E L ’ s t heor ydoes notr eal l yt ake i nt o acc ount t he pas t hi s t or yof t he arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng. T he A rbi t r al T r i bunal r epea t edl yand emphat i cal l ym ade c l eart hatany d o c u m e n ts o b tain e d th ro u g h th e § 1 7 8 2 p ro c e ss w o u ld h a v e to b e su b m itt e d p u rsu a n t to t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal ’ s ow n di r ect i ves and dea dl i nes . A ccor di ngl y , Pr ocedur al O r derN o.12

3 i s s ued on J ul y28, 2008 s t at ed “thatal l document s obt ai ned t hr ough t he Texas and D el aw ar e D i s coverypr oces s ( i f m ai nt ai ned) w oul d have t o be pr oduced a ccor di ng t o t he pr ocedur al t i m et abl e, as pr ovi ded byt he Pr ocedur al O r derN o. 2. ” ( A 848. ) Pr ocedur al O r derN o. 5 dat ed N ovember 27, 2008 confi r m ed t hat“anydocument s t hatm i ghtbe obt ai ned t hr ough t he pendi ng D i s coverypr ocedur es w i l l have t o be pr oduced i n t he
arbi t r at i on i n compl i ance w i t h t he pr ocedur al r ul es s eti n Pr ocedur al O r derN o. 2. ” (A 1 0 1 3 .) T h is N o v e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 o rd e r f u rth e r re m in d e d th e p a rties th a t “a ll document ar yevi dence r el i ed upon byt he par t i es w as r equi r ed t o be pr oduced w i t h t he par t i es ’ fi r s ts ubm i s s i ons ( i
. e. , C l ai m ant ’ s A ugus t 21, 2008 St at ement of C l ai m and R esp o n d en t’ s O ctob er 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 S tat em en t of D ef en ce an d C o u n terclai m s)” a n d that, “[ a]s pr ovi ded byPr ocedur al O r derN o. 1, Sect i on F. 1, t he par t i es m ayonl ypr oduce ne w document s w i t h t hei r Subm i s s i on N o. 2 i ns ofaras nece s s ar yt o r es pond t o an ar gum entor al l egat i on of t he ot herpar t y . ” ( A 1013- A 1014. ) Si nce then, C E L t i m el yfi l ed i t s s econd
w r i t t en s ubm i s s i on and ac company i ng document at i on w i t h t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal , t he evi dent i ar yhear i ng w as conduct ed, and t he arbi t r at i on r ecor d w as cl os ed. T he A rbi t r al T r i bunal al s o i ndi cat ed t hati tw oul d r enderi t s fi nal aw ar d pr om pt l y , and t he par t i es expec ta dec i s i on s oon. Si m pl yput , t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal ’ s ow n pas t r ul i ngs i ndi cat e t hat th e tim e to s u b m it a n ye v id e n c e in th e c u rr e n t a rb itr a tio n p ro c e e d in g h a s p a s s e d
. C E L ’s c o n d u c t in th e a rb itratio n p ro c e e d in g f u rth e r h ig h lig h ts th e d e f icie n c ies in its “ re o p e n in g ” th e o ry . In iti a lly , ith a s e v id e n tlyo f f e re d n o th in g b u t sp e c u latio n f o r its13

c laim th a t th e A rb itral T rib u n a l m ay r eopen the pr ocee di ng. I n fac t , i t has notfi l ed any
m ot i on forr eopeni ng w i t h t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal , and t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hati t even i nfor m ed t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal of t he pos s i bi l i t yt hats uch a mot i on w oul d be fi l ed i n t he futur e bas ed on t he ul t i m at e out come of t hi s § 1782 pr ocee di ng. See, e. g. , G r upo Q u m m a , 2 0 0 5 W L 9 3 7 4 8 6 , at * 2 (n o tin g th a t ap p lica n t “is c o n tin u in g to m a k e e f f o rts in t he M exi can pr ocee di ngs t o obt ai n a rul i ng t hati t i s notpr ecl uded fr om offe r i ng
a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e ” ). It sim ilarlyn e v e r re q u e ste d a n e x ten sio n o f tim e w ith re sp e c t to ei t hert he s ubm i s s i on deadl i nes ort he dat e fort he evi dent i ar yhear i ng i t s el f. O n t he cont r ar y , i toffe r ed no obj ect i on t o t he cl os ur e att he end of t he evi dent i ar yhear i ng, and its c o u n s e l a c tu a lly c o m p lim e n te d th e A rb itr a l T ri b u n a l f o r i ts h a n d lin g o f

th e p ro c e e d in g . C E L ’s att o rne yev en so u g h t t o p rec lud e N P C fro m u sing an yd o cu m en ts atthe e v iden ti ary hear i ng t hatw er e notat t ache d t o t he par t i es ’ ear l i ers ubm i s s i ons . Such act i ons do not
a p p e a r to b e c o n sis ten t w ith a p a rtyw h o a n ticip a tes f ili n g a m o tio n to re o p e n in o rd e r to pr es enty etm or e evi dence
. C E L a ltern a tiv e lya rg u e s th a t, ev e n a f ter th e A rb itral T rib u n a l m a k e s its a w a rd , it coul d s t i l l t ake a dvant age of a “r evi s i on” pr ocedur e ava i l abl e underSw i s s l aw . R el y i ng on a l et t erpr ovi ded byan expe r ton Sw i s s l aw , i t cont ends t hata par t ym ays eek the

“ r e v i s i o n ” o f

a n a rb i t r a l a w a r d i n t h e S w i s s F e d e r a l S u p r e m e C o u r t b a s e d o n n e w l ydi s cover ed evi dence
. I f t he part ym eet s t he ( appar ent l ys t r i ct ) r equi r ement s es t abl i s hed by S w i ss l aw , t he S w i ss courtevident l yw i l l cance l t he arbi t ral aw ard and rem i t t he case14

b a c k to th e o ri g in a l a rb itr a l tr ib u n a l, w h ic h th e n w ill c o n s id e r t h e n e w f a c ts o r e v id e n c e . A ccor di ng t o C E L , t hi s w hol e pr oces s r epr es ent s a “c ont i nuat i on” of the arbi t r at i on p ro c e e d in g itse lf. N P C d o e s n o t co n tes t th e e x iste n c e o f th is “ re v isio n ” p ro c e d u re . B u t,
w ith the s u p p o rto f a let ter fro m a S w iss l aw sp ec ial ist , itd o es a rgu e tha t th e p roc ed u re
cons t i t ut es a new pr ocee di ng as oppos ed t o a mer e “c ont i nuat i on” of the under l y i ng
arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng. W hi l e C E L vi gor ous l ydefe nds t he “c ont i nuat i on” charact eri zat i on , w e ult i m at el yfi nd t hat, at l eastfor pu rposes of § 1 78 2 an d the m oo t ness in q u ir y , th e “ re v is io n ” p ro c e d u re s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d a n e w p ro c e e d in g . Si m pl yput , t oo m uch has happene d i n t hi s m at t erforanyj udi ci al “r evi s i on” pr ocedur e t o be cons i der ed par tof t he under l y i ng arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng. A s al r eady not ed, t he arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng r efe r ence d i n t he appl i cat i on and t he under l y i ng D i s t r i ct C our tor der s i s near l yover , w i t h t he par t i es s i m pl yw ai t i ng fora dec i s i on fr om t he A rbi t r al T r i bunal
. T he Supr eme C our t i n I nt el emphasi zed that“a di s t r i ctcour t i s not
re q u ire d to g ra n t a § 1 7 8 2 (a ) d isc o v e rya p p lica tio n sim p lyb e c a u se it h a s th e a u th o rityto do s o. ” I nt el , 542 U
. S. at264 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. I t t hen w enton t o i dent i fys ever al fac t or s t hatcoul d be t aken i nt o cons i der at i on byt he di s t r i ctcour t i n i t s exer ci s e of d isc re tio n . Id . at 2 6 4 -6 5 . In th is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt p u rp o rte d to e x e rc ise its d iscreti o n u n d er § 1 7 8 2 w ith resp ec t t o an o n g o ing (an d alm o st finishe d ) ar bi t r at i on pr ocee di ng . I tobvi ous l ydi d notcons i derw het hert he appl i cabl e fa ct or s s uppor t ed gr ant i ng di s coveryas s i s t ance fors om e futur e j udi ci alpr ocee di ng befo re the S w i ssW e f u rth e r n o te th a t, at lea st a c c o rd in g to N P C ’s S w iss law e x p e rt, a p a rtyg e n e ra lly 4 h a s u p t o t e n ye a r s t o f

i l e i t s “ r e v i s i o n ” a c t i o n s o l o n g a s i t i s a l s o f i l e d w i t h i n 9 0 d a ys fr om di s cover i ng t he gr ounds forr evi s i on. Fur t her m or e, t he t i m e l i m i t does noteven a p p lyif th e g ro u n d f

o r re v isio n is a c rim in a l ac t. If w e th e re f o re w e re to a c c e p t th e lo g ic o f C E L ’s a p p ro a c h , w e e v id e n tlyc o u ld n o t co n sid e r th e c u rre n t m a tter m o o t u n til 2 0 1 9
. S u c h a re s u lt a p p e a rs a b s u rd a n d in c o n s is te n t w ith f u n d a m e n ta l p ri n c ip le s o f m o o tn e s s . W e l i kew i s e r ej ectt he ami cus ’ s as s er t i on t hatN PC ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s s houl d be 5 re jec ted b e c a u se , “if

d isc o v e ryis p e rm itt e d , b u t th e a rb itrato rs n o n e th e les s re f u se to r eopen the arbi t r at i on and cons i dert he new evi dence , C E L m i ght be abl e t o chal l enge the a rb itral a w a rd o n th e g ro u n d s th a t th e a rb itrato r d id n o t p ro v id e C E L w ith a f u ll oppor t uni t yt o pr es enti t s cas e. ” ( A m i cus O pp’ n at1. ) Such a hi ghl ys pecul at i ve s etof c ir c u m s ta n c e s h a s n o re a l b e a ri n g o n th e m o o tn e s s q u e s tio n c u rr e n tly b e f o re u s . 15 Feder al Supr eme C our t . B eca us e t he di s t r i ctcour t s ar e ves t ed w i t h t he di s cr et i on t o m ake t he fa ct - s peci fi c det er m i nat i on of w het hert o gr antdi s coveryas s i s t ance , i t w oul d not be pr operfort hi s C our tt o det er m i ne i n t he fi r s t i ns t ance w het herdi s coveryas s i s t ance sh o u ld b e g ra n ted w ith re sp e c t to a sp e c u lativ e “ re v isio n ” p ro c e d u re . A t th e v e rylea st, C E L s houl d fi l e a ne w appl i cat i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t pr emi s ed on t hi s t heor yof

“ re v is io n .” I n t he end, w e mustr ej ectbot h t he “r eopeni ng” and “ r evi s i on” t heor i es offe r ed by 4 C E L and fi nd t hatt hi s ent i r e mat t erhas become m oot . I n s i m i l arci r cumst ance s , t he 5 Second C i r cui tvaca t ed t he or dercompel l i ng t he pr oduct i on of di s coveryand r emanded th e c a s e w ith in s tr u c tio n s f o r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt to d is m is s th e § 1 7 8 2 a p p lic a tio n a s m o o t. See I s hi har a, 251 F. 3d at122- 23, 127. W e w i l l fol l ow t he Second Ci r cui t ’ s exampl e.16 III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill 

### g ran t N P C ’s “co n d itio n al” m o tio nto d ism iss, dismis s the appeal as m oo t, vacate the Dis tric t Court ’s ju dg m ent, and rem and the m atte r t o the Di s tr i c t

Court wi th i ns tr

uc t i ons that

i t di s m i s s CEL’ s § 1782 a

ppl i c at i on a s m oot .