Document: 542 U.S. 241 INTEL CORP.v.ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. No. 02-572. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 20, 2004. Decided June 21, In 1964, pursuant to a recommendation by the Commission on International Rules Judicial Procedure (Rules Commission), and as part an endeavor improve judicial assistance between States foreign countries, Congress completely revised 28 U. S. C. § 1782(a). its current form, 1782(a) provides that federal district court "may order" person residing or found in give testimony produce documents "for use proceeding international tribunal ... upon application any interested person." The 1964 overhaul deleted prior law's words, "in pending country." (Emphasis added.) Respondent Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), filed antitrust complaint against petitioner Intel Corporation (Intel) with Directorate-General for Competition (DG-Competition) European Communities (Commission), alleging had violated competition law. After DG-Competition declined AMD's seek produced private suit Alabama court, AMD petitioned District Northern California under order directing those documents. concluded did not authorize such discovery. Ninth Circuit reversed remanded instructions rule application's merits. appeals observed includes matters before bodies quasi-judicial administrative nature, and, since has contained no limitation proceedings are "pending." A character, noted, was likely sequel investigation. Appeals rejected Intel's argument called threshold showing sought, if located Union, would have been discoverable Nothing 1782(a)'s language legislative history, said, required "foreign-discoverability" order. Held: Section authorizes, but does require, provide discovery aid AMD. Pp. 254-266. 1. To context, summarizes how Commission, acting through DG-Competition, enforces laws. Upon receiving complaint, sua sponte, conducts preliminary investigation into alleged violations may consider information provided complainant, it from complaint's target. DG-Competition's results formal written decision whether pursue complaint. If decides proceed, be reviewed First Instance ultimately, Justice (European Justice). When pursues typically serves investigation's target "statement objections" advises intention recommend finding violation. is entitled hearing independent officer, who report DG-Competition. Once makes recommendation, dismiss issue holding liable imposing penalties. Commission's final action subject review Justice. Lacking "litigant" status proceedings, complainant nonetheless significant procedural rights. Important here, submit relevant disposition. 254-255. 2. language, confirmed warrants conclusion provision leads dispositive ruling. therefore rejects categorical limitations place statute's reach. 255-263. (a) AMD, qualifies "interested person" within compass. contention person[s]" include complainants, encompasses only litigants, sovereigns, sovereign's designated agents. support reading, highlights 1782's caption, "[a]ssistance tribunals litigants tribunals." however, cannot undo limit text's plain meaning. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 331 519, 529. plainly reaches beyond universe persons "litigant." With participation rights fair construction term. 256-257. (b) seeks meets specification tribunal." "tribunal" when acts first-instance decisionmaker. Both tribunals, proof-takers. Their limited record Commission. Hence, could "use" evidence reviewing courts submitting current, investigative stage. adopting recommended replacement term "any proceeding" words "a tribunal," opened way proceedings. This warrant exclude extent decisionmaker, ambit. 257-258. (c) "proceeding" which sought must reasonable contemplation, need "pending" "imminent." launched qualify assistance. Since revision, reference "pending," adjudicative presumes intends statutory amendments real substantial effect. Stone INS, 514 386, 397. revision's history corroborates Congress' recognition available both investigations. 1996 amendment clarifies covers "criminal investigations conducted accusation." amendment, suggests meant rein in, rather than confirm, example, range authorizes. 258-259. (d) impose foreign-discoverability requirement. Although expressly shields protected legally applicable privileges, nothing text limits court's production-order authority materials jurisdiction there. Nor suggest intended blanket two policy concerns raised aid—avoiding offense governments, maintaining parity litigants. While comity legitimate touchstones exercise discretion particular cases, they do generally rule. Moreover, questions governments offended domestic prescription permitting, requiring, nation domain reasons peculiar own legal practices, culture, traditions; necessarily signal objection courts. tribunal's reluctance production present similarly resistance receipt gathered readily accept discovered States, senseless. Concerns about among adversaries litigation likewise sound basis cross-the-board person," can condition relief reciprocal exchange. conditions acceptance information, thereby whatever measure deems appropriate. also suggestion applicant show law allow analogous proceeding. 1782 abroad. It direct engage comparative analysis determine exist here. Comparisons fraught danger. For close analogue regime, lacks party participate complainant. 259-263. 3. Whether appropriate this case yet unresolved. guide remand, notes factors question. First, whom participant proceeding, apparent ordinarily nonparticipant matter arising over appearing it, itself them evidence. contrast, nonparticipants outside jurisdictional reach; thus, their evidence, unobtainable absent aid. Second, presented request nature tribunal, character underway abroad, receptivity government, agency federal-court Further, grounds urged scope determining should granted case. Specifically, conceals attempt circumvent proof-gathering other policies country Also, unduly intrusive burdensome requests trimmed. declines, at juncture, supervisory adopt rules barring Any await further experience applications lower Several facets remain largely unexplored. amici concerned granting yield disclosure confidential encourage "fishing expeditions," undermine program offering prosecutorial leniency admissions wrongdoing, one suggested pretextual. shown preservation privileges controls Federal Rule Civil 26(b)(2) ineffective prevent information. leaves below, applying closer scrutiny, assure airing adequate what, any, 264-266. 292 F. 3d 664, affirmed. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, concurring judgment, post, p. 267. BREYER, dissenting opinion. O'CONNOR, took consideration 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 Seth P. Waxman argued cause petitioner. him briefs were Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Joseph Kattan, James A. Murray. Carter G. Phillips brief amicus curiae Court's 12.6. Virginia Seitz, Richard Weiner, Gene Schaerr, Marinn Carlson. 3 Patrick Lynch respondent. D. Hacker. 4 Jeffrey Minear urging affirmance. Acting Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Dreeben, Katsas, Michael Jay Singer, Sushma Soni.* 5 JUSTICE GINSBURG Court. 6 assist tribunal. us, respondent Commission). pursuit applied California, invoking 1782(a), requiring potentially "resid[ing]" "found" 7 Concluding requested discovery, denied application. determination case, instructing merits accord Appeals, we hold entertain request. statute, rule, categorically bar seeks: (1) compass; (2) decisionmaker; (3) "imminent"; (4) contains requirement governing We caution, question considerations disposition 8 * 9 product congressional efforts, span nearly 150 years, gathering tribunals. first 1855; form letters rogatory forwarded diplomatic channels. See Act Mar. 2, 1855, ch. 140, 10 Stat. 630 (circuit appoint commissioner make examination witnesses" letter court); 3, 1863, 95, 1, 12 769 (authorizing respond compelling witnesses here abroad "suit[s] recovery money property").1 1948, substantially broadened That legislation, codified 1782, eliminated government interest allowed designate preside depositions "to used civil peace." 25, 646, 62 949 (emphasis added). next year, "civil action" inserted "judicial proceeding." May 24, 1949, 139, 93, 63 103. Jones, Assistance: Procedural Chaos Program Reform, Yale L. J. 515 (1953). 1958, prompted growth commerce, created Commission) "investigate study existing practices cooperation countries view achieving improvements." Sept. Pub. 85-906, 72 1743; Rep. 2392, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., (1958); Smit, Litigation 1015-1016. Six years later, unanimously adopted legislation Commission;2 included complete revision 1782. Oct. 88-619, 9, 78 997; 1026-1035. 11 As recast obtaining documentary tangible well testimony. Notably, country," replaced phrase Brief Amicus Curiae 6, 4a-5a accompanying Senate Report account discretely deletion word "pending,"3 explains introduced ensure "assistance confined conventional courts," extends "administrative proceedings." 1580, 88th (1964); see H. 1052, 1st (1963) (same). amended add, after "foreign "including criminal National Defense Authorization Fiscal Year 1996, 104-106, 1342(b), 110 486. reads: "The resides his statement document thing including accusation. made issued, made, person.... prescribe practice procedure, whole procedure taking producing [or be] Procedure. 13 "A compelled violation privilege." B 14 "worldwide competitors microprocessor industry." 665 (CA9 2002). October 2000, Ibid.; App. 41. executive organ Communities." (hereinafter Curiae). exercises responsibility wide areas covered Union treaty; treaty provisions, regulations thereunder, competition. ibid.; Consolidated Versions Treaty Establishing Community, Arts. 81 82, 2002 O. (C 325) 33, 64-65, 67 EC Treaty). operating aegis, Union's primary enforcer. Within anticompetitive agreements (Art. 81) abuse dominant market position 82). 64-65. 15 Intel, law, abused loyalty rebates, exclusive purchasing manufacturers retailers, price discrimination, standard-setting cartels. 40-43; Petitioner 13. suit, titled Intergraph Corp. Corp., brought Alabama. Supp. 1255 (ND Ala. 1998), vacated, 195 1346 (CA Fed. 1999), remanded, 88 1288 2000), aff'd, 253 695 2001); 111; Pet. Cert. 13a-14a.4 California5 file 13a-14a. asserted connection Ibid.6 16 "[un]supported authority." Id., 15a. Reversing determination, 3d, 669. noted points decision: "`bodies nature,'" id., 667 (quoting re Letters Rogatory Tokyo Dist., 539 1216, 1218-1219 1976)); "[no] `pending,'" Sealed Letter Request Legal Assistance Prosecutor Gen. Russian Federation, 235 1200, 1204 2000)); supra, 248-249. observed, investigation: "[The is] body authorized enforce written, binding decisions, enforceable fines [The Commission's] decisions appealable then [European] Thus, is, minimum, leading 667; infra, 254-255 (presenting synopsis decisions). 17 Union. 668. Acknowledging Courts construed "nothing amendments, require [by] seeking what proceeding," threshold, added, disserve twin aims "providing efficient participants encouraging example similar our courts." Ibid. 18 On Magistrate Judge "overbroad," more specific directly Opposition 1a-6a; 15, n. 9. stayed petition certiorari. Order Vacating Hearing Date, C 01-7033 MISC JW Cal., Dec. 2003) (stating "Intel renotice motion de novo Judge's issues ruling"). 19 certiorari, 540 1003 (2003), division Circuits requirement.7 now questions. "litigants" sovereign agents? (i). least "imminent" invoke successfully? Compare Crown Prosecution Serv. Kingdom, 870 686, 691 (CADC 1989) (proceeding "within contemplation"), Ishihari Chemical 251 120, 125 (CA2 2001) "imminent— very occur soon occur"); (Letter Rogatory) Federative Republic Brazil, 936 702, 706 1991) Answering "yes" "no" second, affirm Circuit's judgment. II 20 sketch briefly laws regulations. "overriding responsibility" conduct prescriptions. 6. investigation, take complaint." "Ultimately, DG Competition's [the DG-Competition] declines review" last resort matters, 7; 50; see, e. g., Case T-241/97, Stork Amsterdam BV 2000 II-309, [2000] M. 31 (Ct. 2000) (annulling rejection complaint).8 21 7. 18-27. "dismis[s] issu[e] infringement penalties." dismissing 52-53, 89-90. 22 lacking "party" Most prominently, allegations, 7-8, 5; Amsterdam, II, 328-329, ¶ 51-53. III 23 all begin [our 1782] statute." Barnhart Sigmon Coal 534 438, 450 (2002). satisfies conclusion: statute ruling, i. e., responsive reviewable court.9 Accordingly, reject 24 turn catalog apply "litigants, agents sovereigns," excludes mere accorded "limited rights." 10-11, 26-27. Highlighting tribunals," urges read, correspondingly, reach "litigants." (internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis original). 25 caption cautioned, "cannot [statute's] plain." 529 (1947). "upon No doubt among, most common of, 1782; read convey more. See, Whitman American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 457, 482-483 (2001) (rejecting narrow reading 42 7511(a) based light "specifically" broader coverage provision's text). 26 triggers role process. earlier 255, addition prompting right consideration, proceed discontinues dismisses 52-53. Given these rights, "possess[es] [judicial] assistance," 1027 ("any "intended officials he convention merely possess assistance").10 27 Beyond authorities, Justice, But proof-taking instances. Tr. Oral Arg. 17. established 248, instructed revisions rendering agencies." §2, 1743 previously referred draft, adopted, understood change "provid[e] possibility [administrative abroad]." 7-8; 1026-1027, nn. 71, 73 ("[t]he `tribunal' . investigating magistrates, arbitral agencies, civil, commercial, criminal, courts"; affording cases "permits rendition proper powers"). ("[W]hen function blur[s] decisionmaking."). 29 progressed stage; therefore, currently even imminently agenda. 27-29. 30 "judicial," "When amend presume effect." 397 (1995). sync; reflects "whether administrative, nature." clarify 486; 249. broad 1964. ("[T]he [district] court[s] grant magistrates countries."). 32 short, view, expressed Ishihara comes play "imminent — occur" omitted)). Instead, requires ruling courts, contemplation. 2d, 691; Ministry Affairs Trinidad Tobago, 848 1151, 1155, (CA11 1988); 1026 ("It necessary [adjudicative] time eventually proceeding."). D 33 up divided: Does ordering able obtain jurisdiction? 253-254, 34 note outset, count significant, privileged material: ("[N]o shall provisions [§ privilege."). shielding material safeguarded privilege, "If sweeping restriction discretion, enacting liberalizing Application Gianoli Aldunate, 54, 59 1993); Four Pillars Enterprises Co. Avery Dennison 308 1075, 1080 2002); 669 (case below); Bayer AG, 146 188, 193-194 (CA3 1998).11 35 observes regard "leaves issuance which, refuse desirable." 36 raises avoiding 23-24; Reply 5, 13-14; Asta Medica, A., 981 (CA1 1992) ("Congress collision course legislatures, carefully chosen procedures best suited concepts litigation."). important permit insertion 37 fact traditions Bayer, 194 ("[T]here reason assume because use."); Recent Developments Litigation, Tex. Rev. 215, 235-236 (1994) Developments) (same).12 South Carolina Ins. Assurantie Maatschappij "De Zeven Provincien" N. V., [1987] Cas. (House Lords ruled nondiscoverability English stand litigant 1782).13 situation serve thwart objective find useful but, having bearing comity, 38 person's exchange Euromepa, Esmerian, 51 1095, 1102 1995); 237. maintain concludes 1101.14 39 19-20 ("[I]f pursuing preclude documents."). danger.15 regime free mount Commission-steered Ritter, W. Braun, Rawlinson, Law: Practitioner's Guide 824-826 (2d ed. (describing "more certain (and cheaper) alternative enforcement [European member states'] courts").16 IV 40 emphasized, 260-261, simply so. Kingdom 238 1312, 1319 ("a compliance mandatory"). below bear 41 (as here), 4a ("When th[e] [who evidence] evidence." declaration Smit re: Ltd., Shipley Company, C., Pursuant Misc. 99-232 (FB) (EDNY, 18, 2000))). hence, 4a. suggests, 23. restrictions 27. 196 (remanding district-court "appropriate measures, needed, protect confidentiality materials"); Esses, 101 873, 876 1996) (affirming neither "burdensome [n]or duplicative"). 43 maintains that, proposes, then, least, 34-36; cf. Thomas Arn, 474 146-147 (1985) (this establish "sound practice" decline, rules. courts.17 stated want 11-16; Support 4-8. altogether clear, aid, means say "never" "hardly ever" know views utility widely shared community entities blended functions. 44 application, part, Leniency Program. 37; 11-16.18 Yet 260, Civ. Proc. (c), business secrets 45 merits, bears scrutiny received date. Having held assistance, leave appropriate.19 46 47 stated, judgment 48 Affirmed. 49 O'CONNOR Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Chamber Commerce Roy T. Englert, Jr., Max Huffman, Robin Conrad; Product Liability Advisory Council, Kenneth Geller Miriam Nemetz. "[A]letter witness." 515, 519 Code, 65 Colum. 1015, (1965) Litigation) (noting courts' evidence-gathering courts). drafted Criminal Uniform Interstate Act, adoption individual Fourth Annual Procedure, Doc. 88, (commenting facilitate institution abroad") summary favor theIntergraph litigation, 699. protective order, imposed governs 72-73. headquartered CaliforniaId., 113. alleges,inter alia, "that monopolized worldwide Windows-capable x86, micro-processors." 55-56. relate to: "(a) x86 microprocessors compete; power enjoys market; actions taken preserve enhance impact position." 55. Eleventh contain SeeIn 1992); 1156 1988). Fifth exists sovereign. Amtsgericht Ingolstadt, G., 82 590, 592 (CA4 1996); Matters, Caracas, Venezuela, 308, 310-311 (CA5 1995). alignment Circuit, Second Third 59-60 1998). Instance, "attached Justice," protection interests, particularly complex facts, whilst same reducing workload Justice." Kerse, Antitrust (3d 1994) dissent closely resembles prosecuting authority, say, Department Justice's Division, adjudicates Trade Commission."Post, 270. questionable liability penalties, dispositions will unless overturned supra page. notes, appears 1696(a), enacted concurrently 1696(a) authorizes "order service issued [foreign] "or "[t]he class parties qualifying `interested persons' [service] purposesmust `process' suit." process; allows document" Government out example: "[I]f company, complainant's otherwise remained unchanged, [§]1696 [person]' serving document." 11. instructs Procedure." mode-of-proof-taking instruction imposes substantive civil-law systems lack pretrial operative ALI, ALI/Unidroit Principles Transnational Proposed Final Draft, 22, Comment R-22E, 118 (2004) ("Disclosure restricted, nonexistent."); Hazard, Discovery Role Law Jurisdictions, Notre Dame 1017, 1018-1019 (1998) 235, 93 ("The drafters [of quite aware circumstance type compel evidence.") Foreign Tribunals: Title Revisited, Syracuse Int'l Comm. 13, Assistance) "[a] rendered President Court") furthermore, might attend litigant-parity determination: "In submitted attachment pleadings expert.... relied merits." 235-236, 94 Among proposed rules, "under law"and circumstances." Post, Because comparison slippery business, dissent's infinitely easier state apply. examples tellingly reveal, 267-268, system. variety resistant ready classification terms, left unbounded inject 269-273, guides At oral argument, counsel observed: violations. Europe, Europe-wide remedy go Commission]." sees "categorical limits" ward off "expensive, time-consuming battles discovery."Post, 268. concern seems imaginary real. There whatsoever, adoption, costs, delays, forced settlements hypothesizes. section scores cases.... All all, served purposes enacted.... [T]here seriously considering, time, amendments."). note, obliged kind made. targeted wield laboring oar opposing Not there "need respond," 271, submission instant reached "Leniency Program" "cartel [to] confess wrongdoing" return leniency. CommissionAmicus 14-15; significance entered 73;supra, 251, 4; 2002) denial "would frustrate [another] court"). 50 today's shows, statute. None finds being so, I think) improper unnecessary repeated Committee far know, full committee, much less Senate, House, signed bill, agreed with. Since, moreover, entire so-called desire so statements contradicted elsewhere. 52 sure expression says says, join 53 dissenting. 54 reads extend believe reasonably intended. Some citizen ask prosecutor's prosecute. majority's help prosecutor indifferent unreceptive. e.g., Mann, Introduction Israel 267, 278 (A. Shapira K. DeWitt-Arar eds. Many nonprosecutorial, nonadjudicative bodies. British developer, hoping persuade Housing funding build low-income housing development, demand firm designed developer grant. Cf., Mayer, Corporation: Multiple Lines Accountability, Quangos, Accountability Reform: Politics Quasi-Government 111, 114 (M. Flinders Smith 1999). firm, competitor, opening contrary authorities' desires. 55 One why wrong permitting America's processes circumstances. deal problems sort mentioned. answer discovery-related expensive, cost delay, threats themselves force settle underlying disputes. Brookings Institution, All: Reducing Costs Delay Task Force 6-7 (1989) (lawyers surveyed estimated 60% costs typical attributable high often process); Center, Willging, Shapard, Stienstra, Miletich, Disclosure Practice, Problems, Proposals Change 1-2, 4, 8, 14-16 (Tables 3-5) (1997) (study outlining discovery). proliferate, deflect attention authorities important; lead desire; promote disharmony national harmony achieve. They resources crowd dockets. 56 while some limits, outer bounds important. Those instances virtually (if considered case) prove unjustified. 57 us comprehensive set limits. limitations, adopt. entity possesses few tribunal-like characteristics, applicability serious doubt, pay entity's "tribunal"-like non-"tribunal"-like status. By paying nations help, better achieve basic cooperative objectives (creating investigate "cooperation" countries). 58 concept special Cf. Chevron Natural Resources 467 837, 843 (1984); Skidmore Swift 323 134, 140 (1944). Like administrators, administrators understand job affect ability carry responsibilities. think agency's understanding workings where following true: nonlitigants avoid firms competitors. Where benefit outweighs allowing expect either it. If, notwithstanding instance, governmental intergovernmental making need. none circumstances present, offset obvious competitor courts? any. 60 limiting principles dismissal Communities' (Commission) authority's questionable. many respects, my knowledge, decide bring prosecution behalf judges. 96; Wils, Combination Investigative Prosecutorial Function Adjudicative Enforcement: Economic Analysis, World Economics Review 201, 207 (June 2004) (explaining, article Service, initial adjudicator Commissioners sit judges sides case"). adjudicate adversary proofs argument. Nor, majority recognize, later availability "review Commission," "AMD `use' stage." Ante, 257. unclear. 207-209 scholarly debate activities "`independent impartial tribunal'" Convention Human Rights). 61 told Act. added considered, will, "tribunal," "ability responsibilities" threatened. potential (including company) files (say, competitor), understandable. characterization functions deference. disregards states "the decisionmaker." 246-247. ignoring undermines interests maxim construe statutes "hel[p] conflicting different work together needed highly interdependent commercial world." Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd Empagran ante, 164-165. second factor present. Neither nor comparable seeks, Europe respect world investigates. 15. nonlitigant, apart Conditions nonlitigant limited. conditions, roughly addition, 4. 64 What source principles? they, perhaps others, implicit itself, given purpose terms not, "supervisory powers permit, promulgation management litigation," mention "`procedures deemed desirable viewpoint although nowise commanded Constitution.'" Cupp Naughten, 414 141, (1973)). Dickerson 530 428, 437 (2000) ("This tribunals"). asked 34-38. along lines suggest; consequently, reverse dismissed. respectfully determination.

Category: 4