Opinion ID: 6317061
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prior Proceedings in the United States

Text: 1. P&ID’s enforcement action in the District of Columbia In 2018, roughly contemporaneously with its enforcement action in England, P&ID brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the Arbitration Award against Nigeria in the United States. See Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of 9 Nigeria, No. 18-cv-594, 2018 WL 8997443 (D.D.C. Oct. 1, 2018). Nigeria moved to dismiss the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) immunized it from even having to brief the merits of the case. Id. at . The district court (Christopher R. Cooper, J.) rejected that argument and set a briefing schedule. Id. at -3. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded, however, holding that under the FSIA, the district court could not force a foreign sovereign to defend a case on the merits before ruling on a “colorable assertion[] of immunity.” Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, 962 F.3d 576, 586 (D.C. Cir. 2020). On remand, the district court again denied Nigeria’s motion to dismiss, holding that Nigeria had implicitly waived its sovereign immunity by signing the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, 506 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6-11 (D.D.C. 2020). Nigeria’s interlocutory appeal of that order is now pending before the District of Columbia Circuit. 10 2. Nigeria’s first § 1782 application in New York On March 25, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Nigeria applied under § 1782 to obtain discovery for use in the Nigerian Proceedings from ten different banks that had done business with P&ID. P&ID intervened in the matter, but it did not oppose the application; rather, it asked the district court to grant it access to any evidence obtained pursuant to the application and to limit the use of such evidence to the Nigerian Proceedings, suggesting that Nigeria actually sought the requested discovery for use in the English Proceeding. In its reply, Nigeria argued that P&ID lacked standing as an “interested party” to seek access to the discovery materials, and characterized P&ID’s insinuation that Nigeria intended to use discovery materials in the English Proceeding as “rank speculation”: P&ID claims without support that it is an “interested party” but fails to articulate any cognizable interest it has in the Application, or present any reason why it should be provided with access to discovery materials produced by Bank Respondents. P&ID cites to its September 19, 2019 fraud conviction in Nigeria, but makes no claim that it has or will challenge this conviction, or that it plans to use documents produced by Bank Respondents in connection with any ongoing investigation or proceeding. Rather, P&ID believes it is entitled to discovery produced in these legal 11 proceedings based on rank speculation that Applicants may seek to cite to documents produced by Bank Respondents “in other proceedings.” P&ID’s speculation is insufficient to transform P&ID into an interested party. J. App’x at 275 (citation omitted). Importantly, Nigeria did not assert that it would not use the discovery materials in the English Proceeding; indeed, it argued in the same filing that it had every right to use any discovery the court might order in other proceedings if it so chose. See id. at 276, quoting In re Accent Delight Int’l Ltd., 869 F.3d 121, 135 (2d Cir. 2017) (“Section 1782 does not prevent an applicant who lawfully has obtained discovery under the statute with respect to one foreign proceeding from using the discovery elsewhere.”). On May 7, 2020, the district court (Lorna G. Schofield, J.) granted Nigeria’s § 1782 application. Judge Schofield also granted P&ID’s request to have “reasonable access” to materials obtained pursuant to any subpoenas issued, but did not restrict Nigeria’s use of the evidence in the English Proceeding. Order, In re Ex Parte Application of the Fed. Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:20-mc-00169, ECF No. 18, at 4 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020). As it turns out, Nigeria did, in fact, use evidence of alleged bribery in connection with the GSPA that it obtained through that first § 1782 application to 12 make out its prima facie case of fraud in the English Proceeding. P&ID wrote to Judge Schofield objecting to that use and to Nigeria’s having allegedly obtained materials outside the scope of the court’s order, and it requested a protective order (1) requiring Nigeria to destroy materials it obtained that were outside the scope of discovery and (2) prohibiting Nigeria from using the materials it obtained through § 1782 discovery in the English Proceeding. Judge Schofield never ruled on the requested protective order. She did, however, grant a separate request by JPMorgan Chase (one of the producing parties) for a protective order. That order, to which both JPMorgan Chase and Nigeria stipulated, expressly permitted Nigeria to use materials that JPMorgan Chase produced “in proceedings arising out of or in connection with the Nigerian Proceedings, the GSPA, the Award, or the attempted enforcement, confirmation, vacatur, or other challenge of the Award.” Stipulated Protective Order, In re Ex Parte Application of the Fed. Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:20-mc-00169, ECF No. 26, at 3 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2020).