Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

8 

ZF AUTOMOTIVE US, INC. v. LUXSHARE, LTD. 

Opinion of the Court 

nation.  See  id.,  at  14–15  (a  governmental  adjudicator  is
“one whose role in deciding the dispute rests on” a “nation’s 
sovereign authority”).

This  reading  of  “foreign  tribunal”  is  reinforced  by  the 
statutory defaults for discovery  procedure.  In addition to 
authorizing district courts to order testimony or the produc-
tion of evidence, §1782 permits them to “prescribe the prac-
tice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the prac-
tice and procedure of the foreign country or the international 
tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or produc-
ing  the  document  or  other  thing.”  §1782(a)  (emphasis
added).  The reference to the procedure of “the foreign coun-
try  or  the  international  tribunal”  parallels  the  authoriza-
tion for district courts to grant discovery for use in a “for-
eign  or  international  tribunal”  mentioned  just  before  in
§1782.  The statute thus presumes that a “foreign tribunal” 
follows “the practice and procedure of the foreign country.”
It is unremarkable for the statute to presume that a foreign
court, quasi-judicial body, or any other governmental adju-
dicatory  body  follows  the  practice  and  procedures  pre-
scribed by the government that conferred authority on it.3 
But that would be an odd assumption to make about a pri-
vate adjudicatory body, which is typically the creature of an
agreement between private parties who prescribe their own
rules.  See  Stolt-Nielsen  S. A.  v.  AnimalFeeds  Int’l  Corp., 
559 U. S. 662, 683 (2010).  That the default discovery pro-
cedures for a “foreign tribunal” are governmental suggests
that the body is governmental too.

Now  for  “international  tribunal.” 

“International”  can 
mean either (1) involving or of two or more “nations,” or (2)
involving or of two or more “nationalities.”  American Her-
itage Dictionary, at 685 (“[o]f, relating to, or involving two 

—————— 

3 The provision makes the similarly unremarkable assumption that an 
“international tribunal” defaults to the rules on which the relevant na-
tions agreed.