F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e the M a tt e rof

the S e a r c h of T H E P R E M I S E S L O C A T E D A T 840 1 4 0 TH AV ENUE NE, BE LL EVUE, WAS HI NG T ON , a nd In re R E QU E S T F R OM T HE R US S I AN F E DE R AT I ON P UR S UA NT T O T HE T R E AT Y B E T WE E N T HE UN I T E D, S T AT E S OF AME R I C A A ND T HE R US S I AN F E DE R AT I ON ON MUT UA L AS S I S T AN C E I N C R I MI NA L MAT T E R S I N T HE MAT T E R OF A R K A D I A . G O N T M A K H E R . UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P et i t i on er- A pp el l ee , v. GL OB AL F I S HI NG , I NC . ; a n d AR KA DI A . G O N TM A K H ER, R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lla n ts . N o. 09- 35096 D. C. No . 0 8 - CV- 0 1 4 0 2 - J LR OP I NI ON 

# FI LED JAN 19 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J a m e s L . R oba r t , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J ul y 14, 2010 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on

B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , G R A B E R , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O pi ni on by Judg e G raber G R A B E R , C i rc ui tJudg e: T h e R u s s ia n g o v e rn m e n t s o u g h t th e a id o f th e U n ite d S ta te s g o v e rn m e n t, pur s ua ntt o abi l a t e r a l tr e a ty , i n i t s c r i m i na l i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr os e c ut i on of A ppe l l a ntA rka di A . G ontm a khe rf ori l l e ga l c r abbi ng. T he di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a s u b p o e n af

o rc e r ta in d o c u m e n ts in th e p o s s e s s io n o f A p p e lla n t G lo b a l F is h in g , I n c . A ppe l l a nt s m ove d f

orapr ot e c t i ve or de rtha te f f e c t i ve l y w oul d ha ve qua s he d the s ubpoe na , a r gui ng tha tthe R us s i a n gove rnm e nt ’ s i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr os e c ut i on of Go n tm a k h e rwe r e c o rru p ta n d i l l e g a l . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r td e n i e d th e m o t i o n , a n d we a f f irm . FA CTU A L A N D PRO CED U RA L H I STO RY C ongr e s s l ong a go author i z e d pa r t i e s t o r e que s tl e ga l a s s i s t a nc e f r om the f e d e r a l c o u r ts in th e c o lle c tio n o f e v id e n c e f

o ru s e in af

o r e ig n p r o c e e d in g .3

O r i g i n a l l y e n a c t e d i n th e mi d - 1 9 th c e n tu ry , th e s t a tu t e n o w c o d i f i e d a t2 8 U . S. C. § 1782 pe rm i t s f

e de r a l c our t s t o pr ovi de s uc h a s s i s t a nc e . S e e , e . g. , 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, 247–49 ( 2004) ( di s c us s i ng the h i st o ry o f th e st atu t e atso m e l en g th ). S ect i o n 1 7 8 2 , i n i t s cu rren tfo rm , st at es:

T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t o f

th e d is tr ic t in w h ic h ap e r s o n r e s id e s o ris foun d m ayorder hi m t o g i ve hi s t es t i m on y or s t at em entor t o p rodu ce adoc um e ntorothe rthi ng f orus e i n apr oc e e di ng i n af or e i gn or i nt ernat i on al tri bu nal , i ncl ud i ng 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 . T he order m aybe m ade pursuantt o a l ett er rogat ory i ss ued, or re qu es tm ade, by a f orei gn or i nt ernat i on al tri bu nal or up on the appl i ca t i on of any i nt er es t ed pers on and m aydi re ctthat the t e s t i m ony ors t a t e m e ntbe gi ve n, orthe doc um e ntorothe rthi ng be p r o d u c e d , b e f

o r e ap e r s o n ap p o in te d b y th e c o u r t. B y v ir tu e o f h is appoi ntm e nt , the pe r s on appoi nt e d ha s pow e rt o a dm i ni s t e ra ny nece ss ary oath and t ake the t es t i m on y or s t at em ent . T he order m ay pres cr i be the pract i ce and p roce du re , w hi ch m aybe i n w ho l e or part the pract i ce and p roce du re of the fore i gn coun tryor the i nt ernat i on al tr i buna l , f

ort a ki ng the t e s t i m ony ors t a t e m e ntorpr oduc i ng the doc um e ntorothe rthi ng. T o the e xt e nttha tthe or de rdoe s not pr e s c r i be othe rw i s e , 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 do cum entor other thi ng prod uced, i n acc ordance w i th the F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re . A pe r s on m a y notbe c om pe l l e d t o gi ve hi s t e s t i m ony or s t a t e m e ntort o pr oduc e adoc um e ntorothe rthi ng i n vi ol a t i on of a ny l egal l y app l i cabl e pri vi l ege. 28 U . S . C . § 1 78 2(a) . T o in v o k e § 1 7 8 2 a n d o b ta in f e d e r a l- c o u r t a s s is ta n c e , th e r e q u e s tin g e n tity pres ent s aw ri tt en re qu es tkn ow n as a"l ett errogat ory" (or, i f pre se nt ed by an4

"i nt er es t ed pers on , " kno w n as a"l ett erof re qu es t ") t o the appl i cabl e f eder al di stri ct court . S ee general l y I n re C om m ’ r’ s S ub po enas , 32 5 F . 3d 12 87 , 12 90 (11th C i r. 2003) , abr oga t i on i n othe rpa r tr e c ogni z e d by I n r e C l e r i c i , 481 F . 3d 1324, 1333 n .1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . A s it w o rk s to d a y , b o th f o r e ig n g o v e rn m e n ts a n d p r iv a te p a r tie s , in c lu d in g c o rp o r a tio n s a n d n a tu r a l p e r s o n s , c a n m a k e r e q u e s ts f o ru s e in b o th u n d e r ly in g c iv il la w s u its a n d u n d e r ly in g c r im in a l p r o s e c u tio n s . S e e , e .g ., I n te l, 5 4 2 U .S . a t 2 4 6 ( r e q u e s t b y p r iv a te c o rp o r a tio n f o ru s e in u n d e r ly in g c iv il l aw sui t ); In re L ett erof R equestfr om C row n P rose cut i on S erv. of U ni t ed K i ngdom , 870 F . 2d 686, 687 ( D . C . C i r . 1989) ( r e que s tby f or e i gn gove rnm e ntf

or use i n u nd er l yi ng cr i m i nal i nv es t i gat i on ). O v e rth e y e a r s , th e c o u r ts h a v e in te rp r e te d § 1 7 8 2 a s im p o s in g c e r ta in ab s o lu te r e q u ir e m e n ts o n th e r e q u e s t f o ra s s is ta n c e . F o rin s ta n c e , c o u r ts i nt erpret ed an ear l i ervers i on of the st atut e t o requi re thatthe forei gn nat i on be a p arty t o th e p ro ceed i n g . In t el , 5 4 2 U . S . at2 4 8 . In th e 2 0 th cen tu ry, C o n g ress a m e n d e d th e s ta tu te s e v e r a l tim e s , e a c h tim e r e m o v in g m o r e o f th e ab s o lu te re stri ct i on s on the court s’ abi l i ty t o p rovi de as si st ance . S ee , e. g. , i d. at24 7– 48 (" In 1 9 4 8 , C o n g r e s s s u b s ta n tia lly b r o a d e n e d th e s c o p e o f a s s is ta n c e f

e d e r a l c o u r ts c oul d pr ovi de f

orf or e i gn pr oc e e di ngs . " ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S e a l e d 1, L e tt e rof R e que s tf

orL e ga l A s s i s t a nc e f

r om D e putyP r os e c ut orG e n. of R us s i a n F e d’ n, 2355

F . 3d 1200, 1203–05 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( di s c us s i ng the br oa de ni ng e f f e c tof the 1948, 1 9 4 9 , 1 9 6 4 , a n d 1 9 9 6 a m e n d m e n ts ) . O ne of the i m por t a ntc ongr e s s i ona l purpos e s i n br oa de ni ng the s c ope of f e d e r a l- c o u r t a s s is ta n c e w a s to e n c o u r a g e r e c ip r o c ity b y o th e rn a tio n s . S e e , e .g ., U ni t e d K i ngdom , 870 F . 2d a t690 ( " [ T ] he e xpe c t a t i on orhope w a s tha tby m a ki ng a s s is ta n c e g e n e r o u s ly a v a ilab le th r o u g h th e g o o d o f f ic e s o f U n ite d S ta te s o f

f ic ia ls a n d c o u r ts , o u rc o u n try w o u ld s e t a n e x a m p le f o r e ig n c o u r ts a n d au th o r itie s c o u ld f ol l ow w he n a s ke d t o r e nde ra i d t o U ni t e d S t a t e s c our t s , author i t i e s , a nd l i t i ga t or s . " ) ; J ohn D e e r e L t d. v. S pe rry C orp. , 754 F . 2d 132, 135 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( " ‘I t is h o p e d th a t th e in itia tiv e ta k e n b y th e U n ite d S ta te s in im p r o v in g its p ro ce d u re s w il l i n v it e f o re ig n co u n tries s im il ar ly to ad ju st th eir p ro ce d u re s.’" (quo t i ng the S enat e R eportfor the 19 64 am endm ent )) . B y provi di ng broad as si st ance t o forei gn nat i on s and tri bu nal s vi a § 17 82 , the U ni t ed S t at es encourages fore i gn nat i on s and tri bu nal s t o d o the sa m e, w hi ch benefi t s the U ni t ed S t at es g o v e rn m e n t. T h e ab s o lu te r e q u ir e m e n ts u n d e r§ 1 7 8 2 a r e o n ly p a r t o f th e s to ry , h o w e v e r . T he court s have s tre ss ed that , even i f tho se re qu i re m ent s are m et , a di stri ctcourt s t i l l r e t a i n s th e d i s c r e t i o n t o d e n y ar e q u e s t . S e e , e . g . , I n t e l , 5 4 2 U. S . a t2 6 4 ( " As ea rl i erem ph as i ze d, a di stri ctcourti s notre qu i re d t o g ra nta § 17 82 (a ) di sc ov ery6

ap p lic a tio n s im p ly b e c au s e it h a s th e au th o r ity to d o s o ." ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . "C on gres s gave the fe dera l di stri ctcourt s broad di sc re t i on t o d et erm i ne w hether, an d t o w h atex t en t , t o h o n o r a req u estfo r assi st an ce u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 7 8 2 . " F ou r P i l l ar s E nt er s. C o. v. A veryD enni son C orp. , 30 8 F . 3d 10 75 , 10 78 (9th C i r. 20 02 ); ac cord In re Cl er i ci , 48 1 F . 3d at13 31 ; E del m an v. T ai tt i ng er(I n re E de l m a n) , 295 F . 3d 171, 181 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ; A l F a y e d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 210 F . 3d 4 2 1 , 4 2 4 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e c o u r ts h a v e d e s c r ib e d aw id e r a n g e o f p o te n tia lly ap p lic ab le f

a c to r s to c o n s id e rin m a k in g th a t d is c r e tio n a ry d e te rm in a tio n . S e e , e .g ., I n r e R e que s tf

orA s s i s t a nc e f

r om M i ni s try of

L e ga l A f

f a i r s of T r i ni da d & T oba go, 848 F . 2d 1151, 1156 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( hol di ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d de ny the r e que s ti f

the di s tr i c tc our t" s us pe c t s tha tthe r e que s ti s a‘ f i s hi ng e xpe di t i on’ or ave hi c l e f

orha r a s s m e nt " ) , abr oga t e d i n othe rpa r tby I nt e l , 542 U . S . a t259. T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha tthos e f a c t or s i nc l ude w he the r" the pe r s on f r om w hom di s c ove ry i s s oughti s apa r t i c i pa nti n the f or e i gn pr oc e e di ng" ; " 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 rw a y abr oa d, a nd the r e c e p tiv ity o f

th e f o r e ig n g o v e rn m e n t o rth e c o u r t o ra g e n c y ab r o a d to U .S . f e d e r a lc our tj udi c i a l a s s i s t a nc e " ; w he the rthe r e que s t" c onc e a l s a n a tt 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 af or e i gn c ountry ortheT he part i es have al so di re ct ed ou r a tt ent i on t o M L A T s w i th the P hi l l i pp i nes 1 (r at i fi ed i n 1 99 4), M exi co (r at i fi ed i n 1 98 7), and It al y ( ra t i fi ed i n 1 98 2). 7 U n ite d S ta te s " ; a n d w h e th e rth e r e q u e s t is " u n d u ly in tru s iv e o rb u r d e n s o m e ." I n te l, 542 U . S . a t264–65. I n r e c e ntde c a de s , the U ni t e d S t a t e s ha s r a t i f i e d a n i nc r e a s i ng num be rof bi l at er al tre at i es w i th o ther nat i on s t o fac i l i t at e l egal proceedi ng s, kn ow n as m utual l e ga l a s s i s t a nc e tr e a t i e s orM L A T s . S e e , e . g. , I n r e C om m ’ r ’ s S ubpoe na s , 325 F . 3d a t1290 ( di s c us s i ng a n M L A T w i th C a na da , r a t i f i e d i n 1989) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E ra t o (In re S ub po ena I ss ued t o E ra t o), 2 F . 3d 11 (2d C i r. 19 93 ) ( di sc ussi ng an M L A T w i th the N etherl ands, si gn ed i n 1 98 1); In re R equestfr om K as perA ns e rm e t , 132 F . R . D . 622 ( D . N . J . 1990) ( di s c us s i ng a n M L A T w i th S w i t z e r l a nd, r a tif ie d in 1 9 7 6 ) . A s th e irn a m e s s u g g e s t, th e s e tr e a tie s p r o v id e f o rb ila te r a l, 1 m u tu a l a s s is ta n c e in th e g a th e r in g o f le g a l e v id e n c e f

o ru s e b y th e r e q u e s tin g s ta te i n cri m i n al i n v est i g at i o n s an d p ro ceed i n g s. V i ew ed th ro u g h th e l en s o f reci p ro ci ty, M L A T s r e p r e s e n t ad ir e c t ap p r o a c h to a c h ie v in g r e c ip r o c ity w ith o th e rn a tio n s , in a ddi t i on t o the i ndi r e c tappr oa c h t a ke n by c ongr e s s i ona l e xpa ns i on of the s c ope of § 1 78 2. T he ra t i fi ca t i on of M L A T s i n rec entdeca des c an be se en as ye tanother st ep t o w ard th e g o al o f g reat er l eg al assi st an ce b y, an d fo r, o th er n at i o n s, atl east8

w i th res pectt o request s by f orei gn go vernm ent s f

or use i n u nd er l yi ng cr i m i nal i n v est i g at i o n s an d p ro ceed i n g s. A ti ss ue here i s the M L A T betw ee n the U ni t ed S t at es and R ussi a, w hi ch e nt e r e d i nt o f

or c e a f t e rr a t i f i c a t i on by both pa r t i e s i n 2002. T r e a ty B e tw e e n the U ni t ed S t at es of A m er i caand the R ussi an F eder at i on on M utual L egal A ss i st ance i n C r i m i na l M a tt e r s ( " U S - R us s i aM L A T " ) , J une 17, 1999, S . T r e a ty D oc . N o. 106- 22. I n ge ne r a l , the tr e a ty pr ovi de s tha t , upon r e que s t , the tw o na t i ons w i l l pr ovi de

" c o mp r e h e n s i v e mu tu a l l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e i n c r i mi n a l ma tt e r s . " US- Ru s s i aM LAT, art . 1, ¶ 1 . L egal as si st ance i ncl ud es "provi di ng do cum ent s, re cords, and o ther ite m s ." I d . a r t. 2 ( 2 ) . T h e tr e a ty s p e c if ie s th a t th e r e c e iv in g p a r ty " s h a ll p r o m p tly e xe c ut e the r e que s t , " i d. a r t . 7, ¶ 1, a nd tha t" [ t ] he c om pe t e ntauthor i t i e s of the R e que s t e d P a r ty s ha l l ha ve the author i ty t o i s s ue s ubpoe na s , s e a r c h w a rr a nt s , or othe ror de r s ne c e s s a ry f orthe e xe c ut i on of

r e que s t s , " i d. a r t . 7, ¶ 3. I n D e c e m be r2007, the R us s i a n gove rnm e ntr e que s t e d l e ga l a s s i s t a nc e f r om the U ni t e d S t a t e s pur s ua ntt o the U S - R us s i aM L A T . T he r e que s tc onc e rne d the R us s i a n gove rnm e nt ’ s c r i m i na l i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr os e c ut i on of A ppe l l a nt G on tm akher, a U ni t ed S t at es ci t i ze n and pres i dentof A pp el l antG l ob al F i shi ng . In S ept em ber 200 7, R ussi an autho ri t i es had arr es t ed G on tm akher i n M oscow , fi l ed c r im in a l c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im in M o s c o w C ity C o u r t, a n d d e ta in e d h im p u r s u a n t toT he sa m e day , the U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney’ s off i ce al so subp oenaed G l ob al 2 F is h in g to p r o d u c e th e id e n tic a l d o c u m e n ts o n b e h a lf o f ad o m e s tic g r a n d ju ry , in fu rth er an ce o f a cr im in al in v es ti g atio n b y th e U n it ed S tates. G lo b al F ish in g ’s c o m p lia n c e w ith th a t s u b p o e n ais n o t a t is s u e in th is ap p e a l. 9 tho se char ges. P ert i nentt o thi s app ea l , the R ussi an go vernm ent ’ s r equestfor l egal a s s i s t a nc e i nc l ude d the pr oduc t i on of c e r t a i n doc um e nt s the n i n the pos s e s s i on of G l oba l F i s hi ng. T he U ni t e d S t a t e s gove rnm e ntappl i e d t o the di s tr i c tc our tf orthe appoi ntm e ntof

c o- c om m i s s i one r s t o e xe c ut e the r e que s tf orl e ga l a s s i s t a nc e . T he U ni t e d S t a t e s gove rnm e ntpe t i t i one d the c our t" pur s uantt o A r t i c l e 7 of the [ ML AT ] , 2 8 U. S . C . § 1 7 8 2 , a n d th e C o u r t ’ s o wn i n h e r e n tau th o r i ty " t o ap p o i n ttwo nam ed co-com m i ss i on er s " t o col l ec tevi dence fr om w i tness es and t o t ake s uch othe ra c t i on a s i s r e qui r e d t o e xe c ut e the a tt a c he d r e que s tf r om R us s i am a de pu rs uantt o sai d T re aty. " T hatatt ac hed requestdet ai l s the m any pi ec es of evi dence s oughtby R us s i a . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the appl i c a t i on a nd appoi nt e d c ocom m i ss i on er s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney’ s off i ce . In A ug ust20 08 , the com m i ss i on er s s ub po enae d G l ob al F i shi ng t o p rodu ce the doc um e nt s . A ppe l l a nt s m ove d f orapr ot e c t i ve or de r . A ppe l l a nt s ur ge d the 2 di s tr i c tc our tt o qua s h the s ubpoe napur s ua ntt o i t s di s c r e t i ona ry author i ty unde r28 U . S . C . § 1782. S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the y a r gue d tha t" the C our ts houl d e nt e rapr ot e c t i ve10

o r d e rr e lie v in g G lo b a l [ F is h in g ] o f a n y o b lig a tio n to p r o d u c e d o c u m e n ts f o ru s e in the R ussi an i nv es t i gat i on . " T hey c on t ended thatthe R ussi an proceedi ng s are c orrupta nd i l l e ga l i n ava r i e ty of w a y s , both i n ge ne r a l a nd w i th r e s pe c tt o the s pe c i f i c pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns tG ontm a khe r . A ppe l l a nt s a r gue d tha t , be c aus e the U ni t e d S t a t e s i nvoke d § 1782, the di s tr i c tc our tr e t a i ne d i t s us ua l br oa d di s c r e t i on t o d eny the re qu es tfor a ss i st ance . T h e U n i t edS t at es co u n t ered th at , b ecau se th e req u estfo r assi st an ce aro se un der the U S -R ussi a M L A T and n otdi re ct l y und er§ 1 78 2, the di stri ctcourtl ac ked d is c r e tio n to q u a s h th e s u b p o e n a . A c c o r d in g to th e U n ite d S ta te s , th e U S - R u s s ia M L A T su p er se d ed th e s u b stan ti v e a sp ec ts o f § 1 7 8 2 , i n clu d in g th e d istrict co u rt’s "b ro ad d i scret i o n " t o d en y req u est s. A ft erhear i ng oral ar gu m ent , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on for a pr ot e c t i ve or de r . T he c our the l d tha ti tl a c ke d di s c r e t i on unde r§ 1782 buttha tthe subp oena neverthel es s m ustm ee tm i ni m um const i tut i on al st andards. T he court he l d tha tthe r e que s the r e di d notof f e nd the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on a nd th e r e f o r e d e n ie d th e m o tio n f

o rap r o te c tiv e o r d e r . A p p e lla n ts tim e ly ap p e a l. DI S C US S I ON A . A pp el l at e Juri sdi ct i on O ver the D i stri ctC ou rt ’ s O rder11

B e f or e r e a c hi ng the pa r t i e s ’ a r gum e nt s on the m e r i t s , w e m us tde t e rm i ne w hether w e have j uri sdi ct i on . W e have appel l at e j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe di stri ct c o u r t’s o r d e rd e n y in g th e m o tio n f o rap r o te c tiv e o r d e ro n ly if th e o r d e ris " f

in a l" unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. I n the dom e s t i c c r i m i na l c ont e xt , w e l a c k i nt e r l oc ut ory appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on ove ra n or de rde ny i ng am ot i on t o qua s h as ubpoe na , be c aus e the or de ri s nonf i na l . S i l vav. U . S . D i s t . C our t( I n r e G r a nd J ury S ubpoe naI s s ue d t o B a i l i n) , 51 F . 3d 203, 205 ( 9th C i r . 1995) . " I n or de rt o appe a l the or de r , the pe r s on s ubpoe na e d m us tr e f

us e t o c om pl y a nd c ont e s tthe va l i di ty of the s ubpoe naby ap p e a lin g ac o n te m p t d e te rm in a tio n ." I d . T h e p e r s o n s u b p o e n a e d u n d o u b te d ly f a c e s ad if

f ic u lt c h o ic e — c o m p ly a n d lo s e th e r ig h t to ap p e a l, o rr e f u s e to c o m p ly a n d p o s s ib ly s u f

f e rc o n te m p t s a n c tio n s . B u t th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s " c o n s is te n tly hel d thatthe neces si ty f or expedi t i on i n the adm i ni stra t i on of the cr i m i nal l aw j us t i f i e s " tha trul e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R y a n, 402 U . S . 530, 533 ( 1971) ( c i t i ng C obbl e di c k v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 309 U . S . 323 ( 1940) ; A l e xa nde rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 201 U .S . 1 1 7 ( 1 9 0 6 ) ) . B a la n c in g th e w itn e s s ’ in te r e s t w ith th e n e e d f o re x p e d itio n in the un derl yi ng cr i m i nal ca se , the C ou rthas hel d thatthe w i tness ’ abi l i ty t o force r e vi e w by r e f

us i ng t o c om pl y w i th the s ubpoe na" i s a de qua t e f orhi s pr ot e c t i onA lth o u g h th is c a s e in v o lv e s a n o r d e ris s u e d u n d e rb o th th e U S - R u s s ia 3 M L A T an d 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 7 8 2 , w e see n o d i fferen ce, fo r p u rp o ses o f fi n al i ty, be tw e e n ar e que s ta r i s i ng unde rboth a n M L A T a nd § 1782, a s c om pa r e d t o a re qu es tar i si ng un der § 17 82 on l y. T he tre aty does notspea k t o w hether adi stri ct c our t ’ s or de ri s f

i na l f orpurpos e s of

appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on. S t a t e d di f f e r e nt l y , the go vernm entconcedes thati tob t ai ned the subp oena by i nv ok i ng the procedural m e c ha ni s m of

§ 1782, a nd w e vi e w the f i na l i ty a na l y s i s a s apr oc e dur a l que s t i on, no ta s ub st ant i ve on e. 12 w i th o u tu n d u l y i m p ed i n g th e p ro g ress o f th e [u n d erl yi n g cri m i n al ] case. " C ob bl edi ck, 30 9 U . S . at32 7 (qu ot i ng A l exander, 20 1 U . S . at12 1). B utthere i s an i m po rt antdi ff er ence betw ee n an app ea l fr om an order concerni ng an on go i ng do m es t i c c ri m i nal ca se and an app ea l fr om an order c onc e rni ng ar e que s tunde rthe pr oc e dur a l m e c ha ni s m of 28 U . S . C . § 1782. I n a 3 dom e s t i c c r i m i na l appe a l , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de re nf or c i ng as ubpoe nai s butone s t e p t ow a r d the ul t i m a t e r e s ol ut i on of the unde r l y i ng c r i m i na l c a s e ; i ti s notthe

" f in a l" s te p ta k e n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in th a t c r im in a l c a s e . I n a§ 1 7 8 2 ap p e a l, h o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s u b p o e n ao r d e ris th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s la s t, o r" f in a l," o r d e rb e c au s e , c r itic a lly , th e u n d e r ly in g c a s e in a§ 1 7 8 2 ap p e a l n e c e s s a r ily is co n d u ct ed i n a fo rei g n tri b u n al . O n ce th e d i stri ctco u rth as ru l ed o n th e p art i es’ m o t i o n s co n cern i n g th e ev i d en t i ary req u est s, th ere i s n o fu rth er case o r co n tro v ersy b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.13

F o r th at re as o n , th e c o u rts h av e p er m itted ap p ea ls fr o m a d istrict co u rt’s or de r s unde r§ 1782, e ve n i f the c om pl a i ni ng pa r ty ha s nots ubj e c t e d hi m s e l f or h e r s e l f t o c o n t e m p ts a n c t i o n s . T h e T h i r d C i r c u i ts u c c i n c t l y e x p l a i n e d i n B a y e rAG v. B et ac hem , Inc. , 17 3 F . 3d 18 8, 18 9 n . 1 (3d C i r. 19 99 ): "O nl y the di sc ov ery di sput e und er28 U . S . C . § 1 78 2 i s occ urri ng i n the U ni t ed S t at es . T here fore , b e c au s e th e u n d e r ly in g litig a tio n is in [ af o r e ig n c o u r t], th is d is c o v e ry o r d e ris i m m e di a t e l y appe a l abl e . " I n I n r e L e tt e r s R oga t ory I s s ue d by D i r e c t orof I ns pe c t i on of

G ove rnm e ntof

I ndi a , 385 F . 2d 1017, 1018 ( 2d C i r . 1967) , J udge F r i e ndl y e xpl a i ne d f

orthe S e c ond C i r c ui ttha t

— l i ke a n or de re nf or c i ng the s u b p o e n a s o f

in d e p e n d e n t a d m in is tr a tiv e a g e n c ie s , a n o r d e rg r a n tin g as u b p o e n ain ai d o f a n extra di t i on proceedi ng , and an o rdert o app ea r bef ore the Int ernal R e ve nue S e rvi c e — a n or de rpur s ua ntt o § 1782 i s f i na l a nd appe a l abl e . " T he d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n s u c h c a s e s a n d th e A le x a n d e r - C o b b le d ic klin e o f au th o r ity is tha ti n the s e i ns t a nc e s the pr oc e e di ng be f or e the di s tr i c tc our tt o c om pe l t e s t i m ony s t a nds s e pa r a t e f

r om the m a i n c ontr ove r s y . " I d. ; s e e a l s o K e s tr e l C oa l P ty . L t d. v. Jo y G lo b al In c., 3 6 2 F .3 d 4 0 1 , 4 0 3 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( "O rd er s [ issu ed u n d er§ 1 7 8 2 ], l i ke or de r s e nf

or c i ng s ubpoe na s , a r e f

i na l a nd appe a l abl e be c aus e the y di s pos e of al l i ss ues i n the proceedi ng . ") .14

O ur si st erci rc ui t s have rul ed thatthey have appel l at e j uri sdi ct i on ov erorders i ssu ed u n d er § 1 7 8 2 w i th o u tq u al i fi cat i o n o r ex cep t i o n . P h i l l i p s v . B ei erw al t es, 46 6 F . 3d 12 17 , 12 20 (10th C i r. 20 06 ); F od en v. G i anol i A l du nat e ( In re A ppl i c a t i on of

G i a nol i A l duna t e ) , 3 F . 3d 54, 57 ( 2d C i r . 1993) ; J a ns s e n v. B e l di ngC or t i c e l l i , L t d. , 84 F . 2d 577, 578 ( 3d C i r . 1936) ; s e e a l s o W e be rv. F i nke r , 554 F . 3d 1379, 1385 ( 11th C i r . ) ( not i ng, butnotr e a c hi ng, the a r gum e nttha t" aM ot i on t o C om pel un der § 17 82 i s afi nal , di sposi t i ve order because, al tho ug h there i s an ongoi ng a c t i on i n af

or e i gn tr i buna l , the M ot i on t o C om pe l i s the f i na l or de rt o be i ss ued b y the U ni t ed S t at es court ") , ce rt . deni ed, 13 0 S . C t . 59 (200 9). O ur si st er circ u it s a lso h av e h eld th at th ey h av e a p p ellate ju risd icti o n o v erth e d istrict co u rt’s deni al of a m ot i on t o q uash even w hen the subj ec tof the subp oena i n the fe dera l c a s e a ls o h ap p e n s to b e ap a r ty in th e u n d e r ly in g f o r e ig n litig a tio n . K e s tr e l C o a l, 362 F . 3d a t403; F ode n, 3 F . 3d a t56–57. O u ro w n ju r is p ru d e n c e is le s s ab s o lu te . I n m o s t c a s e s , w e h a v e s im p ly s ta te d , w ith o u t c la r if

ic a tio n o re x p la n a tio n , th a t w e h a v e ap p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n . S e a l e d 1, 235 F . 3d a t1203; A dva nc e d M i c r o D e vi c e s , I nc . v. I nt e l C orp. , 292 F . 3d 6 6 4 , 6 6 6 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ); O k u b o v . R eyn o l d s (In re L ett ers R o g at o ry fro m T o k yo D i s t . P r os e c ut or ’ s O f

f i c e ) , 16 F . 3d 1016, 1018 n. 1 ( 9th C i r . 1994) ; I n r e K e vork,15

788 F . 2d 566, 569 ( 9th C i r . 1986) ; s e e a l s o F ourP i l l a r s , 308 F . 3d a t1078 (e xerc i si ng j uri sdi ct i on w i tho utexpl anat i on ). I n al i tt l e - c i t e d c a s e de c i de d i n 1974, how e ve r , w e he l d tha t , w he n the s ubj e c tof

the s ubpoe nai n the f

e de r a l c a s e i s a l s o apa r ty t o the f or e i gn l i t i ga t i on, the rul e f rom the do m es t i c c ri m i nal cont extappl i es : A pp el l at e j uri sdi ct i on l i es onl y i f the i nt e r e s t e d pa r ty s uf f e r s c ont e m pt . I n r e L e tt e r s R oga t ory f r om H augesund , N orw ay , 49 7 F . 2d 37 8, 38 0– 81 (9th C i r. 19 74 ). W e e xp l ai ned a few ye ar s l at er , i n In re R equestfor Jud i ci al A ss i st ance fr om S eoul D i stri ctC ri m i nal C o u r t, 5 5 5 F .2 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ) , th a t th e e x c e p tio n a n n o u n c e d in H au g e s u n d is n a rr o w : W e h a v e ap p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n s o lo n g a s th e ap p e lla n t in th e f e d e r a l c a s e is n o t th e in te r e s te d p a r ty in th e u n d e r ly in g f o r e ig n p r o c e e d in g . A lth o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d n o t c h a lle n g e d o u rju r is d ic tio n in S e o u l, w e f e lt com pel l ed t o exp l ai n: "H augesund , ho w ever , i s i napp l i cabl e bec ause the order there w as di re ct ed agai nsta party t o the sui ti n N orw ayfor w hi ch the l ett er r oga t ory w a s i s s ue d. H e r e , the s ubpoe nai s di r e c t e d a ga i ns taba nk, notthe ap p el l an tw h o i s th e p arty o f i n t eresti n th e p ro ceed i n g b efo re th e fo rei g n tri b u n al . " I d. H e r e , th e s u b

je c t o f th e s u b p o e n ais G lo b a l F is h in g , w h ic h is n o t ap a r ty to th e u n d erl yi n g cri m i n al case i n R u ssi a ag ai n stG o n tm ak h er. A co rp o rat i o n i s aW e a l s o hol d tha tthi s appe a l i s notm oot . S e e B e tke rv. U . S . T rus tC orp. 4 ( I n r e H e r ita g e B o n d L itig .) , 5 4 6 F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( " T h e p a r ty a s s e r t i ng m ootne s s be a r s ahe a vy bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe r e i s no e f f e c t i ve r e l i e f r e m a i ni ng f

orac our tt o pr ovi de . " ( a l t e r a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks o m itte d ) ) . A lth o u g h G lo b a l F is h in g h a s c o m p lie d w ith th e s u b p o e n ain p a r t, its l a w y e rha s s t a t e d t o us tha ti tc ont i nue s t o s e a r c h i t s vol um i nous e l e c tr oni c f i l e s f or d o c u m e n ts r e s p o n s iv e to th e s u b p o e n a . R e v e r s in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ru lin g w o u ld pr ovi de s om e e f

f e c t i ve r e l i e f

t o G l oba l F i s hi ng, be c aus e i t s ongoi ng doc um e nt re vi ew coul d cea se . 16 s e p a r a te le g a l e n tity f

r o m its e m p lo y e e s , in c lu d in g its p r e s id e n t. S e e , e .g ., A brahi m & S on s E nt er s. v. E qu i l on E nt er s. , L L C , 29 2 F . 3d 95 8, 96 2 (9th C i r. 2002) . T he na rr ow H auge s und e xc e pt i on the r e f or e doe s notappl y . W e r e j e c tthe g o v ern m en t ’ s arg u m en tth atw e sh o u l d ex t en d th e H au g esu n d ex cep t i o n t o th ese c i r c um s t a nc e s s i m pl y be c aus e G ontm a khe ri s the pr e s i de ntof G l oba l F i s hi ng a nd th u s G lo b a l F is h in g h a s s o m e ab s tr a c t in te r e s t in th e R u s s ia n c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g . G i ven o ur narr ow i nt erpret at i on of the H augesund exce pt i on i n S eoul , the fa ctthat w e have notm ent i on ed the except i on i n m ore than three deca des, and the fa ctthat no othe rc i r c ui tc our te ve n r e c ogni z e s the e xc e pt i on, w e a r e di s i nc l i ne d t o e xpa nd i t s s c ope he r e . A c c or di ngl y , w e hol d tha tw e ha ve appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdenyi ng the m ot i on for aprot ec t i ve order. 4 B . F e d e r a l C o u r t R e v ie w o f R e q u e s ts u n d e r§ 1 7 8 2 a n d th e U S - R u s s ia ML AT17

T he part i es offe r c on tra st i ng vi ew s on the prop ersc op e of f eder al court re vi ew i n si tuat i on s s uch as thi s one, i n w hi ch the execut i ve branch has re qu es t ed a s s is ta n c e u n d e rb o th § 1 7 8 2 a n d th e U S - R u s s iaM L A T . A p p e lla n ts c o n te n d th a t, as w i th any re qu es tun der § 17 82 , the di stri ctcourtm ustexer ci se i t s " broad di sc re t i on " t o h on or or t o d eny are qu es tfor a ss i st ance , F ou r P i l l ar s, 30 8 F . 3d at 1 0 7 8 , in c lu d in g c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e f a c to r s d is c u s s e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in I nt e l , 542 U . S . a t264. T he M L A T i s as e l f - e xe c ut i ng tr e a ty w hi c h, upon ra t i fi ca t i on , re qu i re d n o i m pl em ent i ng l egi sl at i on t o t ake e ff ec tw i thi n the U ni t ed S t at es. A rat i fi ed sel f-ex ecu t i n g treaty g en eral l y st an d s o n th e sam e fo o t i n g as a f e de r a l s t a tut e , tha ti s , al a t e r - i n- t i m e s e l f - e xe c ut i ng tr e a ty ha s the s a m e e f f e c ton a n e xi s t i ng f

e de r a l s t a tut e a s al a t e r - i n- t i m e a c tof C ongr e s s . S e e M e de l l i n v. T exas , 55 2 U . S . 49 1, 50 9 n . 5 & 51 8 (20 08 ) ( ho l di ng thata l at er -i n-t i m e s el fe x e c u tin g tr e a ty s u p e r s e d e s af e d e r a l s ta tu te an d th a t ala te r - in - tim e f e d e r a l s ta tu te s u p e r s e d e s atr e a ty ) . I n Ap p e l l a n t s ’ v i e w, h o we v e r , n o th i n g i n th e ML AT s upe r s e de d the r e qui r e m e nttha tdi s tr i c tc our t s m us te xe r c i s e the i rbr oa d di s c r e t i on. T he gove rnm e ntof

f e r s adi f f e r e nti nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the M L A T . I n the go vernm ent ’ s vi ew , al tho ug h the U S -R ussi a M L A T i ncorpo ra t ed the procedural m e c ha ni s m of

§ 1782 t o c a rry outr e que s t s f ora s s i s t a nc e vi athe f

e de r a l c our t s , the tre aty s up er se ded al l the subst ant i ve as pect s of § 17 82 , i ncl ud i ng the di sc re t i on ary18

f a c t or s di s c us s e d by the S upr e m e C our ti n I nt e l . T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tthe o n l y s u b s t a n t i v e l i m i t a t i o n s o n ar e q u e s to r i g i n a t i n g u n d e rth e US - R u s s i aML AT are th e l i m i t at i o n s d efi n ed b y th e treaty i t sel f. A cco rd i n g l y, th e fed eral co u rt s m u st exec ut e r equest s f

or as si st ance w i tho utconsi dera t i on of the § 1 78 2 d i sc re t i on ary fact o rs. W e th er ef

o re m u st d eter m in e w h eth erth e tre aty s u p er se d ed th e s tatu te’s gr a ntof di s c r e t i ona ry author i ty t o the di s tr i c tc our t s . S e e C ont ’ l I ns . C o. v. F e d. E xpr e s s C orp. , 454 F . 3d 951, 954 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng tha tw e r e vi e w de novo the i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

atr e a ty ) . " ‘ T he i nt e rpr e t a t i on of atr e a ty , l i ke the i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

as t a tut e , be gi ns w i th i t s t e xt . ’ " A bbottv. A bbott , 130 S . C t . 1983, 1 9 9 0 (2 0 1 0 ) (q u o t i n g M ed el l i n , 5 5 2 U . S . at5 0 6 ). "If th e p l ai n t ex ti s am b i g u o u s, w e l oo k t o o ther s ou rc es t o el uci dat e the tre aty’ s m ea ni ng , i ncl ud i ng the pu rposes of the tr e a ty , i t s dr a f

t i ng hi s t ory , the pos tr a t i f i c a t i on unde r s t a ndi ng of the c ontr a c t i ng pa r t i e s a nd the de c i s i ons of the c our t s of

othe rs i gna t or i e s . " H os a kav. U ni t e d A i r l i ne s , I nc . , 305 F . 3d 989, 993–94 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ( c i t i ng E l A l I s r a e l A i r l i ne s , L t d. v. T s ui Y uan T s e ng, 525 U . S . 155, 167–76 ( 1999) ) . " T hr oughout , ‘ i ti s ourr e s pons i bi l i ty t o gi ve the s pe c i f i c w or ds of

the tr e a ty am e a ni ng c ons i s t e ntw i th the s ha r e d e xpe c t a t i ons of the c ontr a c t i ng part i es . ’ " I d. at99 4 (qu ot i ng A i r F ra nce v. S aks, 47 0 U . S . 39 2, 39 9 (19 85 )) .19

N e i the rA ppe l l a nt s northe gove rnm e nta s s e r t s tha tthe m e a ni ng of the M L A T ’ s t e xti s pl a i n. W e a gr e e tha tthe r e i s no pl a i n m e a ni ng he r e . A l though the t extof som e provi si on s provi des m i l d sup po rtfor one i nt erpret at i on or the other, no prov i si on addres se s, or even pu rport s t o add re ss , the qu es t i on di sput ed he r e — the s c ope of

f e de r a l c our tr e vi e w of

M L A T r e que s t s . T he c l os e s tpr ovi s i on in th is r e g a r d is th e f

ir s t s e n te n c e o f

A r tic le 7 , p a r a g r ap h 3 , w h ic h s ta te s :

" R e q u e s ts s h a ll b e e x e c u te d in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e la w s o f th e R e q u e s te d P a r ty e xc e pti f thi s T r e a ty pr ovi de s othe rw i s e . " B uttha ts e nt e nc e i s a m bi guous . T he ph ra se "e xecut ed i n acc ordance w i th the l aw s of the R equest ed P arty" coul d m ea n

" s ubj e c tt o the pr oc e dur a l m e c ha ni s m s a nd s ubs t a nt i ve l i m i t a t i ons of the l a w s of the R equest ed P arty. " O r, atl ea stas pl ausi bl y, the ph ra se coul d m ea n o nl y " ca rr i ed outi n a c c or da nc e w i th the pr oc e dur a l m e c ha ni s m s of the R e que s t e d P a r ty . " T he t erm "e xecut ed" s ug gest s aprocedural m ec hani sm on l y, se e B l ac k’ s L aw D i c t i ona ry 567 ( 6th e d. 1990) ( de f i ni ng " e xe c ut e " a s , i n pa r t , " t o c a rry out a c c or di ng t o i t s t e rm s " ) , buti t s m e a ni ng i n c ont e xti s f a rf r om pl a i n. W e turn, th e n , to o th e rin d ic a to r s o f th e tr e a ty p a r tie s ’ in te n t, n e a r ly a ll o f w h ic h s tr o n g ly s uppor tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on. 1. D ef

er ence t o the E xecut i ve B ra nch20

" I t is w e ll s e ttle d th a t th e E x e c u tiv e B r a n c h ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f atr e a ty ‘is e n title d to g r e a t w e ig h t.’" A b b o tt, 1 3 0 S . C t. a t 1 9 9 3 ( q u o tin g S u m ito m o S h o ji A m ., I n c . v . A v a g lia n o , 4 5 7 U .S . 1 7 6 , 1 8 5 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) . I n a d d itio n to b e in g e n title d to

" gr e a tw e i ght , " the gove rnm e nt ’ s r e a s onabl e i nt e rpr e t a t i on of thi s tr e a ty a l s o f

i nds s tr o n g s u p p o r t in ac o m m o n - s e n s e a r g u m e n t c o n c e rn in g th e in te n t o f th e tr e a ty p a r tie s . T h e § 1 7 8 2 p r o c e s s h a s a lw a y s b e e n a v a ilab le to th e R u s s ia n g o v e rn m e n t. If the tre aty m ai nt ai ns the sa m e s ub st ant i ve l i m i t at i on s a s § 17 82 , then the R ussi an g o v e rn m e n t h a d little to g a in b y a g r e e in g to th e tr e a ty , a n d th e tr e a ty w o u ld a c c o m p lis h m u c h le s s u n d e rA p p e lla n ts ’ v ie w th a n u n d e rth e g o v e rn m e n t’s v ie w . I n o th e rw o r d s , it s e e m s u n lik e ly th a t th e p a r tie s to th e tr e a ty in te n d e d th a t r e q u e s ts for a ss i st ance w ou l d b e s ubj ec t , as before , t o the sa m e di sc re t i on ary f ac t ors und er § 1782. 2 . H a rm o n y in R e s u lts W e ha ve a dopt e d the vi e w of the R e s t a t e m e nt( T hi r d) of F or e i gn R e l a t i ons L a w § 325 c m t . d ( 1987) tha t" [ t ] r e a t i e s tha tl a y dow n rul e s t o be e nf or c e d by the part i es throu gh thei r i nt ernal court s or a dm i ni stra t i ve agenci es shou l d b e c on strued so as t o achi eve uni form i ty of r es ul tdespi t e di ff er ence s betw ee n n at i on al l egal sy st em s. " S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. L om bera -C am orl i ng a, 20 6 F . 3d 88 2, 88 8 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( " B y r e f u s in g to a d o p t a n e x c lu s io n a ry ru le , w e th u s p r o m o te21

ha rm ony i n the i nt e rpr e t a t i on of a n i nt e rna t i ona l a gr e e m e nt . " ( c i t i ng R e s t a t e m e nt ( T hi r d) of

F or e i gn R e l a t i ons L a w § 325 c m t . d) ) . H e r e , the pa r t i e s a gr e e tha tthe R us s i a n gove rnm e ntdoe s notha ve a n a na l og t o § 1782; the R us s i a n c our t s ha ve notbe e n ve s t e d w i th di s c r e t i ona ry author i ty t o de ny ar e que s tf ora s s i s t a nc e . T he gove rnm e nt ’ s vi e w the r e f or e s uppor t s " ha rm ony i n the i nt e rpr e t a t i on" of the M L A T , w he r e a s A ppe l l a nt s ’ vi e w c r e a t e s di s c or d. 3 . T e c h n ic a l A n a ly s is T he t e c hni c a l a na l y s i s of the tr e a ty tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s D e pa r tm e ntof J us t i c e a nd D e pa r tm e ntof S t a t e pr e pa r e d, w hi c h the P r e s i de nts ubm i tt e d t o the S e na t e a tthe s a m e t i m e tha the a s ke d f orthe S e na t e ’ s r a t i f

i c a t i on, s uppor t s the gove rnm e nt ’ s vi e w . S e e I n r e C om m ’ r ’ s S ubpoe na s , 325 F . 3d a t1297–98 (referring t o a t ech n i cal an al ysi s i n i n t erp ret i n g a treaty); U n i t ed S t at es v . D av i s, 767 F . 2d 1025, 1029–30 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ( s a m e ) . T he t e c hni c a l a na l y s i s doe s not a d d r e s s th e is s u e o f

th e p r o c e d u r e /s u b s ta n c e d is tin c tio n d ir e c tly . B u t s e v e r a l p a r ts of the t e c hni c a l a na l y s i s s ugge s ttha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s vi e w i s c orr e c t . F or i ns t a nc e , the f

i r s tpa ge s t a t e s tha t" [ i ] ti s a nt i c i pa t e d tha tthe T r e a ty w i l l be i m pl em ent ed i n the U ni t ed S t at es pu rs uantt o the procedural fr am ew ork p rovi ded by T i t l e 28, U ni t ed S t at es C od e, S ec t i on 17 82 . " ( E m ph as i s a dd ed. ) A s ano ther e xa m pl e , i n f

ootnot e 2, the t e c hni c a l a na l y s i s di s c us s e s apa r t i c ul ars ubs t a nt i ve22

po i ntand con cl ud es that"thi s par agraph [of the T re aty] ac cords the court s broader author i ty t o e xe c ut e r e que s t s tha n doe s T i t l e 28, U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode , S e c t i on 1782, a s i nt e rpr e t e d [ by s om e c our t s ] . " T ha tpa r tof the a na l y s i s m a ke s s e ns e onl y i f the autho rs vi ew ed the tre aty a s e xp andi ng the abi l i ty of R ussi a t o o bt ai n j ud i ci al a s s i s t a nc e be y ond the r e a c h of r e que s t s unde r§ 1782. T he s a m e i s true of the te c h n ic a l a n a ly s is ’ d is c u s s io n o f A r tic le 1 0 , p a r a g r ap h 3 , w h e r e th e au th o r s n o te that"[ t ] hi s i s c on si st entw i th the approach t aken i n T i t l e 28, U ni t ed S t at es C od e, S e c t i on 1782. " I f

the s ubs t a nt i ve pr ovi s i ons of § 1782 c ontr ol l e d, tha ts t a t e m e nt w o u l d b e m ean i n g l ess. 4 . Art i c l e 4 o f

th e US - R u s s i aML AT C o n sid er atio n o f A rticle 4 o f th e tre aty s tro n g ly su p p o rts th e g o v er n m en t’ s v ie w . T h a t a r tic le s p e c if ie s th r e e — a n d o n ly th r e e — g r o u n d s f o rd e n y in g ar e q u e s t: an except i on for m i l i t ary c ri m es , an except i on for s ec uri ty or " other e ss ent i al i n t erest s, " an d an ex cep t i o n fo r req u est s th atd o n o tco n fo rm t o th e treaty. T h e u se o f th ree sp eci fi ed reaso n s fo r d en i al i n a cl o sed l i ststro n g l y su g g est s th atth o se r e a s o n s a r e th e o n ly p e rm is s ib le r e a s o n s f o rd e n y in g ar e q u e s t u n d e rth e tr e a ty . Indeed, the t ec hn i ca l anal ys i s c on fi rm s thatvi ew : A rt i cl e 4 "s peci fi es the l i m i t ed cl as se s of c as es i n w hi ch as si st ance m aybe deni ed un der the T re aty. " U nd er A pp el l ant s’ vi ew , ho w ever , an addi t i on al , un st at ed basi s f or deni al exi st s: U ni t ed23

S ta te s c o u r ts m a y c h o o s e to e x e r c is e th e irb r o a d d is c r e tio n to d e n y th e r e q u e s t, e v a lu a tin g aw id e r a n g e o f e q u itab le c o n s id e r a tio n s . T h a t v ie w is h a r d to r e c o n c ile w i th the t e xtof

A r t i c l e 4 a nd the t e c hni c a l a na l y s i s ’ s tr a i ght - f orw a r d r e a di ng of th a t te x t. N o t o n ly is th a t v ie w h a r d to r e c o n c ile w ith th e te x t, b u t it a ls o c o u ld c r e a te te n s io n w ith f

o r e ig n a f f a ir s b y e f f e c tiv e ly r e q u ir in g th e U n ite d S ta te s to de ny atr e a ty r e que s tf

orar e a s on othe rtha n one s pe c i f i e d i n A r t i c l e 4. 5. L i be r a l C ons truc t i on A tr e a ty " s houl d ge ne r a l l y be c ons true d l i be r a l l y t o gi ve e f f e c tt o the p u rp o s e w h ic h a n im a te s it a n d . . . e v e n w h e r e ap r o v is io n o f atr e a ty f

a ir ly a d m its of tw o c ons truc t i ons , one r e s tr i c t i ng, the othe re nl a r gi ng, r i ght s w hi c h m a y be cl ai m ed un der i t , the m ore l i bera l i nt erpret at i on i s t o b e pre fe rr ed. " U ni t ed S t at es v. S tua r t , 489 U . S . 353, 368 ( 1989) ( a l t e r a t i ons a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed). H er e, A rt i cl e 1, para graph 1 , st at es : "T he P art i es shal l prov i de t o eac h o th e r , in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th is T r e a ty , c o m p r e h e n s iv e m u tu a l le g a l a s s is ta n c e in c r i m i na l m a tt e r s . " T he gove rnm e nt ’ s vi e w " a ni m a t e s " the purpos e of the tre aty— com prehensi ve m utual l egal as si st ance i n cri m i nal m att er s— w here as A p p e lla n ts ’ v ie w " r e s tr ic t[ s ]" th e " r ig h ts w h ic h m a y b e c la im e d u n d e rit." S tu a r t, 489 U . S . a t368. 6. O urS i s t e rC i r c ui t ’ s I nt e rpr e t a t i on24

Th e El e v e n th Ci r c u i tr e a c h e d th e s a me c o n c l u s i o n , f o rma n y o f

th e s a me re as on s, w hen i ti nt erpret ed the U S -C anada M L A T . In re C om m ’ r’ s S ub po ena, 32 5 F . 3d at12 92 –1 30 4. W e f i nd thatcourt ’ s c on cl usi on equal l y app l i cabl e her e: W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e m o s t lo g ic a l c o n s tru c tio n o f th e . . . M L A T is thatthe T re aty partners i nt ended t o u t i l i ze the es t abl i shed procedures s e tf or th i n the e xi s t i ng l a w s of the R e que s t e d S t a t e t o e xe c ut e the tr e a ty r e q u e s ts , r a th e rth a n to s u b je c t e a c h a n d e v e ry tr e a ty r e q u e s t to an y an d al l l i m i t at i o n s o f ex i st i n g l aw o f th e R eq u est ed S t at e. T h ati s, the T r e a ty ut i l i z e s § 1782 a s apr oc e dur e f ore xe c ut i ng r e que s t s , but n o tas a m ean s fo r d eci d i n g w h eth er o r n o tt o g ran to r d en y a req u est so m ade. I d. a t1297. 7. C onc l us i on A lm o st ev er y in d icato r o f th e tre aty- p ar ti es ’ i n ten t fav o rs th e g o v er n m en t’ s vi e w . A ppe l l a nt s a r e c orr e c ttha tthe tr e a ty doe s note xpr e s s l y s pe c i f y the pr oc e dur e / s ubs t a nc e di s t i nc t i on. A ppe l l a nt s a r e a l s o c orr e c ttha ts uc h adi s t i nc t i on i s a n unus ua l m e thod of i nt e rpr e t i ng al a w . B ut , vi e w e d i n the l a r ge rc ont e xtof the tr e a ty , a nd w i th due de f e r e nc e t o the e xe c ut i ve br a nc h, the gove rnm e ntof f e r s the mo r e r e a s o n ab l e i n t e rp r e t a t i o n . W e h o l d th a tr e q u e s t s f o ra s s i s t a n c e v i ath e U SR us s i aM L A T ut i l i z e the pr oc e dur a l m e c ha ni s m s of § 1782 w i thouti m por t i ng the subst ant i ve l i m i t at i on s of § 17 82 . In part i cul ar , the part i es t o the tre aty i nt ended25

thatthe di stri ctcourt s w ou l d n otpo ss es s the no rm al "broad di sc re t i on , " c on fe rr ed by § 1 78 2, t o d eny r equest s f or as si st ance . W e c anno thel p b utno t e thatou r c on cl usi on m ayca rry f ew prac t i ca l i m pl i c a t i ons . T he § 1782 di s c r e t i ona ry f a c t or s i nc l ude , pr i m a r i l y , w he the r" the p erso n fro m w h o m d i sco v ery i s so u g h ti s a p art i ci p an ti n th e fo rei g n p ro ceed i n g "; "the nature of the forei gn tri bu nal , the chara ct erof the proceedi ng s und erw ay abroad, and the re ce pt i vi ty of the forei gn go vernm entor the courtor agency abroad t o U . S . f e de r a l - c our tj udi c i a l a s s i s t a nc e " ; w he the rthe r e que s t" c onc e a l s a n a tt e m pt t o c i r c um ve ntf

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 af or e i gn c ountry orthe U ni t e d S t a t e s " ; a nd w he the rthe r e que s ti s " undul y i ntrus i ve or bur de ns om e . " I nt e l , 542 U . S . a t264–65. I n the c ont e xtof ar e que s tunde rthe M L A T , how e ve r , a l m os ta l l of thos e f a c t or s a l r e a dy w e r e r e s ol ve d by the e xe c ut i ve branch of go vernm entw hen i tsi gn ed the tre aty and by the S enat e w hen i tra t i fi ed th e treaty. F o r i n st an ce, th e recep t i v i ty o f th e fo rei g n g o v ern m en ti s cl ear, b ecau se i ti s the f or e i gn gove rnm e nttha ti s m a ki ng the r e que s t . F orthe s a m e r e a s on, one know s tha tthe r e que s tdoe s notvi ol a t e the pol i c i e s of the f or e i gn c ountry . A s f

or the fa ct ors thatm i gh tst i l l depend on the fa ct s of the part i cul arca se , such as w hether the re qu es ti s burdensom e, i ti s r ea sonabl e t o con cl ud e thatthe U ni t ed S t a t e s g o v e rn m e n te f

f e c t i v e l y h a s we i g h e d th o s e f a c t o r s b y a g r e e i n g t o th e ML AT26

a nd by a gr e e i ng t o the pa rt i c ul a rr e que s ta ti s s ue . I n thi s r e ga r d, i ts houl d be re m em bere d that , before the re qu es tre ac hes the di stri ctcourt , i thas proce eded thr ough the e xe c ut i ve br a nc h, w hi c h ha s the r i ghtt o de ny the r e que s tf orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d i n the tr e a ty a nd w hi c h ha s the r i ghtt o r e que s tm odi f i c a t i ons i n the eventthatthe re qu es ti s t oo bu rdensom e. I n s u m , m a n y o f

th e § 1 7 8 2 d is c r e tio n a ry f a c to r s w o u ldw e ig h au to m a tic a lly in f a v o ro f g r a n tin g th e r e q u e s t, a n d m a n y w o u ld n o lo n g e rr e q u ir e ( o rp e rm it) c ons i de r a t i on by the c our t s be c aus e the y a l r e a dy ha ve be e n c ons i de r e d by ac oequal branch of the U ni t ed S t at es go vernm ent . W hen a requestfor a ss i st ance unde rthe M L A T a rr i ve s be f or e adi s tr i c tc our t , the n, a l m os ta l l the f a c t or s a l r e a dy w o u ld p o in t to th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld g r a n t th e r e q u e s t. C . C ons t i tut i ona l L i m i t a t i ons O ur concl usi on thatthe part i es t o the tre aty i nt ended t o rem ov e the di stri ct c our t ’ s tr a di t i ona l " br oa d di s c r e t i on" doe s note nd the i nqui ry . T he gove rnm e nt a r gue s tha t , upon r e c e i vi ng a n M L A T r e que s tf ora s s i s t a nc e f

r om the e xe c ut i ve br a nc h, the di s tr i c tc our tha s no c hoi c e butt o c om pl y w i th tha tr e que s t . A c c or di ng t o the go vernm ent , the const i tut i on i m po se s no l i m i t s on w hatthe execut i ve branch m ayre qu i re the court s t o d o i n thatsi tuat i on . W e di sa gree .27

T r e a t i e s , l i ke s t a tut e s , a r e s ubj e c tt o c ons t i tut i ona l l i m i t s , i nc l udi ng the s e pa r a t i on of

pow e r s a nd the gua r a nt e e of due pr oc e s s . S e e A m . I ns . A s s ’ n v. G a r a m e n d i, 5 3 9 U .S . 3 9 6 , 4 1 6 n .9 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( h o ld in g th a t tr e a tie s a r e " [ s ]u b je c t . . . to the C ons t i tut i on’ s gua r a nt e e s of i ndi vi dua l r i ght s " ) ; c f

. U ni t e d K i ngdom , 870 F . 2d a t 6 9 3 n .8 ( h o ld in g , in th e c o n te x t o f a§ 1 7 8 2 r e q u e s t, th a t " [ t]h e d is tr ic t c o u r t's di sc re t i on i s of c ou rs e s ubj ec tt o the U . S . C on st i tut i on ") . T he enforce m entof a s ubpoe nai s a n e xe r c i s e of j udi c i a l pow e r . A c c or di ng t o the gove rnm e nt , the e xe c ut i ve br a nc h ha s the author i ty t o e xe r c i s e tha tpow e rdi r e c t l y , be c aus e the di s tr i c tc our ti s r e qui r e d, by vi r tue of a n M L A T r e que s t , t o c om pe l the pr oduc t i on of r e que s t e d doc um e nt s . T he gove rnm e nt ’ s pos i t i on l e a ds t o the i ne s c apabl e a nd una c c e pt abl e c onc l us i on tha tthe e xe c ut i ve br a nc h, a nd notthe j udi c i a l br a nc h, w o u ld e x e r c is e ju d ic ia l p o w e r . A lte rn a tiv e ly , th e g o v e rn m e n t's p o s itio n s u g g e s ts thatby ra t i fy i ng an M L A T , the l egi sl at i ve branch could com pel the j ud i ci al branch t o r e a c h apa r t i c ul a rr e s ul t

— i s s ui ng or de r s c om pe l l i ng pr oduc t i on a nd de ny i ng m o t i o n s fo r p ro t ect i v e o rd ers— i n p art i cu l ar cases, no tw i th st an d i n g an y co n cern s, s uc h a s vi ol a t i ons of

i ndi vi dua l r i ght s , tha taf e de r a l c ourtm a y ha ve . T hi s t oo w oul d be una c c e pt abl e . C f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K l e i n, 80 U . S . ( 13 W a l l . ) 128, 146–47 ( 1 8 7 1 ) .28

T he C ons t i tut i on' s s e pa r a t i on of pow e r s doe s notpe rm i te i the rthe l e gi s l a t i ve ore xe c ut i ve br a nc h t o c onve r tthe j udi c i a l br a nc h i nt o am e r e f unc t i ona ry . I ns t e a d, the C ons t i tut i on r e qui r e s tha t" no pr ovi s i on of l a w ‘ i m pe rm i s s i bl y thr e a t e n[ ] the i n s t i tu t i o n a l i n t e g r i ty o f th e J u d i c i a l Br a n c h . ’ " M i s tr e tt av . U n i t e d St a t e s , 4 8 8 U . S. 3 6 1 , 3 8 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( q u o t i n g Co mmo d i ty Fu tu r e s Tr a d i n g Co mm’ n v . Sc h o r , 4 7 8 U . S. 8 3 3 , 8 5 1 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ) . A t am in im u m , th a t in te g r ity r e q u ir e s th a t f e d e r a l c o u r ts b e ab le to c o n s id e rc o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e s to th e a c tio n th e y a r e r e q u e s te d to c o m p e l, a n d to r e f

r a in f r o m p a r tic ip a tin g in a c tio n th a t w o u ld v io la te th e c o n s titu tio n . W e the r e f or e hol d tha t , i n the c ont e xtof a n M L A T r e que s t , adi s tr i c tc our tm a y not enforce a s ub po ena thatw ou l d o ff end a const i tut i on al gu ar ant ee . W e le a v e f

o ra n o th e rd a y th e e lu c id a tio n o f th e p r e c is e s c o p e o f

ap p lic ab le c o n s titu tio n a l lim its . F o rp r e s e n t p u rp o s e s , w e f in d it s u f f ic ie n t to d e s c r ib e c e r ta in br oa d out l i ne s . A tam i ni m um , the C ons t i tut i on r e qui r e s tha tar e que s tnotbe ho no re d i f the soug ht -a ft eri nform at i on w ou l d b e use d i n a fore i gn j ud i ci al pr oc e e di ng tha t" de pa r t [ s ] f r om ourc onc e pt s of

f unda m e nt a l due pr oc e s s a nd f a irn e s s ." S e o u l, 5 5 5 F .2 d a t 7 2 4 . B u t th e C o n s titu tio n d o e s n o t r e q u ir e u s to e ns ur e tha taf

or e i gn gove rnm e ntof

f e r s the s a m e pr ot e c t i ons a s doe s our C ons t i tut i on be f

or e a s s i s t i ng tha tgove rnm e nt . N e e l y v. H e nke l , 180 U . S . 109, 1 2 2

– 2 3 ( 1 9 0 1 ) ; K a m r in v . U n ite d S ta te s , 7 2 5 F .2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . W e29

a l s o thi nk i tc l e a rtha tthe C ons t i tut i on doe s notm a nda t e c ons i de r a t i on of the vari ou s di sc re t i on ary f

ac t ors devel op ed by the court s a s r ef l ec t i ng cong re ss i on al i n t en tw i th resp ectt o § 1 7 8 2 . N o th i n g i n o u r case l aw su g g est s th atC o n g ress nece ss ar i l y w ou l d o ff

end the C on st i tut i on i f i tam ended § 17 82 , as C on gres s has done r e pe a t e dl y i n the pa s tc e ntury , t o r e duc e the di s c r e t i ona ry f a c t or s tha tthe c our t s m us tc ons i de r . B oth the § 1782 di s c r e t i ona ry f a c t or s a nd the w i de a rr a y of ourow n c ons t i tut i ona l gua r a nt e e s gr a ntm or e tha n the m i ni m um r e qui r e m e nt s of d u e p r o c e s s f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

g r a n tin g a s s is ta n c e p u r s u a n t to a n M L A T r e q u e s t. W e c a n c onc e i ve of

s i tua t i ons i n w hi c h the C ons t i tut i on m i ghtr e qui r e the di stri ctcourtt o d eny are qu es tfor a ss i st ance . F or exam pl e, i f c re di bl e e vi dence de m ons tr a t e d tha tc om pl i a nc e w i th as ubpoe naw oul d l e a d t o a n e gr e gi ous vi ol a t i on of

hum a n r i ght s , s uc h a s t or tur e , the n the C ons t i tut i on m a y r e qui r e the c our t s t o de ny a s s i s t a nc e . T he c our t ’ s r ol e i n thi s c ont e xti s l i m i t e d, how e ve r , a nd m ustbe t em pere d b y the re cogn i t i on that"the fi el d o f f orei gn af fa i rs " i s one that "the C on st i tut i on entrust s t o the P re si dentand the C on gres s. " Z sc herni g v . M i l l er , 38 9 U . S . 42 9, 43 2 (19 68 ). H e r e , A p p e lla n ts a s s e r t th a t w e m u s t d e n y a s s is ta n c e f o rtw o r e a s o n s : F ir s t, the R ussi an sy st em of cr i m i nal j ust i ce , i n g ener al , i s c orrupt . S ec on d, the R ussi an g o v e rn m e n t f

a ile d to o b s e rv e c e r ta in tim e lim its s e t b y R u s s ia n la w to in v e s tig a te30

a nd pr os e c ut e G ontm a khe r . A ppe l l a nt s do nota r gue tha tthe pr oduc t i on of do cum ent s i t se l f w i l l cause s om e e gregi ou s out com e. R ather, they a rgue that s e pa r a t i on- of

- pow e r s a nd due - pr oc e s s c onc e rns pr e c l ude the j udi c i a l br a nc h f r om f ur the r i ng the s e a l l e ge dl y c orrupta nd i l l e ga l pr oc e e di ngs . H a vi ng r e vi e w e d the r e c or d, w e a r e s a t i s f

i e d tha tthe e nf

or c e m e ntof

the s ubpoe naa ti s s ue he r e doe s not of f e nd the C ons t i tut i on. T h e C o n s titu tio n a s s ig n s to th e p o litic a l b r a n c h e s th e p r im a ry r e s p o n s ib ility o f w e i g h i n g g e n e r a l c o mp l a i n t s ab o u tan a t i o n ’ s c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m. By sig n in g an d ra ti fy in g th e U S -R u ss ia M L A T , an d b y a g re ein g to h o n o r R u ss ia’s re qu es ti n thi s c as e, the po l i t i ca l branches of ou r gov ernm enthave det erm i ned that the R us s i a n s y s t e m of

c r i m i na l j us t i c e i n ge ne r a l c om por t s w i th m i ni m um c ons t i tut i ona l gua r a nt e e s . W e w i l l notups e ttha tde c i s i on on the ba s i s of A pp el l ant s’ broad u nsup po rt ed al l egat i on s thatthe R ussi an cr i m i nal j ust i ce sy st em a s aw h o le is c o rru p t. W i th r e s pe c tt o A ppe l l a nt s ’ c om pl a i nt s c onc e rni ng the tr e a tm e ntof G ontm a khe rs pe c i f

i c a l l y , A ppe l l a nt s ’ a r gum e nt s a m ountt o no m or e tha n a com pl ai ntthat , i n thei r vi ew , the R ussi an autho ri t i es have vi ol at ed the R ussi an Co d e o f Cr i mi n a l Pr o c e d u r e b y f a i l i n g t o p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e w i th i n as p e c i f i e d t i me peri od . E ven ass um i ng thatthei r a l l egat i on i s c orre ct , grant i ng the R ussi an31

gove rnm e nt ’ s r e que s tf

ordoc um e nt s w oul d not , f ortha tr e a s on a l one , vi ol a t e our C ons t i tut i on’ s s e pa r a t i on of pow e r s orgua r a nt e e of due pr oc e s s . J us ta s avi ol a t i on of s t a t e l a w doe s notne c e s s a r i l y of f e nd ourC ons t i tut i on, P a r l e v. R unne l s , 387 F . 3d 1030, 1045 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ; S w e a ne yv. A daC ounty , 119 F . 3d 1385, 1391 ( 9th C i r . 1997) , s o, t oo, avi ol a t i on of f or e i gn l a w doe s notne c e s s a r i l y of f e nd our C ons t i tut i on. N e i the rf

unda m e nt a l not i ons of

due pr oc e s s a nd f

a i rne s s nor s e pa r a t i on- of

- pow e r s c onc e rns a r e i m pl i c a t e d by thi s a l l e ge d pr oc e dur a l vi ol a t i on o f R u ssi an l aw , w h i ch co n cern s t i m i n g o n l y. In co n clu sio n , w e h o ldth at co m p li an ce w ith th e R u ss ian g o v er n m en t’ s r e que s tf ordoc um e nt s f

r om G l oba l F i s hi ng doe s notof f e nd the C ons t i tut i on. AF F I RME D.32 COUN SE L A n g e l o J . Ca l f

o a n d Ly l e A . Te n p e n n y , Y a rmu th W i l s d o n Ca l f o , PLLC, S ea tt l e, W as hi ng t on ; Irw i n H . S chw art z, L aw O ff i ce s of I rw i n H . S chw art z, S ea tt l e, W as hi ng t on ; and D avi d V . M ar shal l , D avi s W ri gh tT re m ai ne L L P , S ea tt l e, W ash i n g t o n , fo r R esp o n d en t s-A p p el l an t s. Ja m es D . O es t er l e a nd M i chae l S . M organ, A ss i st antU ni t ed S t at es A tto rn e y s , S e a ttle , W a s h in g to n , f o rP e titio n e r - A p p e lle e .