Court Opinion

ID: 9500780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 18:32:40.94395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:07.148647
License: Public Domain

*1002BLACK, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment affirming the district court. I would affirm the district court, however, on the basis of CONE-CEL’s second theory for why the evidence it seeks is for use in a “proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782. See Opinion at 993-94.
Section 1782(a) does not limit the provision of judicial assistance to “pending” or “imminent” adjudicative proceedings. Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 259, 124 S.Ct. 2466 (rejecting the view that a proceeding must be “very likely to occur and very soon to occur”). The statute requires only that an adjudicative proceeding be “within reasonable contemplation.” Id.
I conclude the record supports the district court’s determination that CONE-CEL’s potential litigation against Egas and Narváez was “within reasonable contemplation.”