Opinion ID: 507218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pending Requirement

Text: 9 Azar concedes that the 1964 amendments eliminated the word pending and broadened the ability of the district court to grant assistance. When the legislature deletes certain language as it amends a statute, it generally indicates an intent to change the meaning of the statute. United States v. Canadian Vinyl Industries, 555 F.2d 806, 810, 64 CCPA 97 (1977); 1A Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction, Sec. 22.01 (4th Ed.1984). Indeed, when words of plain meaning are excised, the deletion of such language almost compels the opposite result. Chertkof v. United States, 676 F.2d 984, 987 (4th Cir.1982). We believe that Congress' elimination of the word pending almost compels us to conclude the opposite result--that a pending proceeding is not absolutely necessary. We will not treat Congress' deletion of the word pending as a mistake or mere accident. Our belief is supported by Hans Smit who wrote, It is not necessary, however, for the proceeding to be pending at the time the evidence is sought, but only that the evidence is eventually used in such a proceeding. Smit, supra note 5, at 1027. 10 The result of one Ninth Circuit case indicates that a pending proceeding is not always necessary to a grant of assistance. In Letters Rogatory from Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, the Tokyo District Prosecutor's Office asked the Tokyo District Court to request the assistance of a United States court in obtaining depositions for use in criminal investigations and possible future criminal trials in Japan. Id. at 1217 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit overlooked the lack of any pending criminal proceeding and decided that, since the request was not  'unrelated' to 'judicial or quasi-judicial controversies,'  it had to affirm the federal district court's grant of assistance. Id. at 1219. This decision demonstrates that the determination to grant assistance turns not on whether the proceeding is pending but on whether the requested evidence will likely be of use in a judicial proceeding. 11 Azar, however, points to the use of the term litigant in the legislative history to argue that Congress only meant to provide assistance to an interested person who is presently involved in a pending proceeding. See 1964 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 3788. This reliance is misplaced. First, the only requirement specifically mentioned in the legislative history is that the assistance must be in connection with a proceeding. Id. Second, we believe that Congress did not use the word litigant to encompass all types of interested persons, but used the word as a common example of an interested person. An interested person, as stated earlier, can also be a foreign official. While a private individual may need to be a litigant in a pending proceeding in order to be an interested person, a foreign official properly designated under foreign law may fall within the definition of interested person even when a proceeding is not pending at the time of the request. Therefore, the word litigant in the legislative history does not restrict a request for assistance from a foreign official to pending proceedings. 9