Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

under §1782 but instead a private adjudicative body.  The 
District  Court  rejected  that  argument  and  granted  the
Fund’s discovery request.

The  Second  Circuit  affirmed.  Unlike  the  Sixth  Circuit, 
the Second Circuit had previously held that a private arbi-
tration panel does not constitute a “foreign or international
tribunal” under §1782.  See National Broadcasting Co., 165 
F. 3d  184.    But  it  still  had  to  decide  how  to  classify  the
ad hoc panel that would adjudicate the dispute between the 
Fund and Lithuania.  After employing a multifactor test to
determine  “ ‘whether  the  body  in  question  possesses  the
functional  attributes  most  commonly  associated  with  pri-
vate  arbitration,’ ”  it  concluded  that  the  ad hoc  panel  was 
“foreign or international” rather than private.  5 F. 4th 216, 
225, 228 (2021).

We  granted  certiorari  and  consolidated  the  two  cases.

595 U. S. ___ (2021). 

II 
We begin with the question whether the phrase “foreign
or international tribunal” in §1782 includes private adjudi-
cative  bodies  or  only  governmental  or  intergovernmental
bodies.  If the former, all agree that §1782 permits discovery 
to proceed in both cases.  If the latter, we must determine 
whether the arbitral panels in these cases qualify as gov-
ernmental or intergovernmental bodies. 

Section 1782(a) provides: 

A 

“The district court of the district in which a person 
resides or is found may order him to give his testimony 
or statement or to produce a document or other thing 
for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tri-
bunal, including criminal investigations conducted be-
fore formal accusation.”