ZF Automotive US v. Luxshare
Petitioner ZS Automotive US, Inc., et al. · Respondent Luxshare, Ltd.
- Reporter
- 596 U.S. ___ (2022)
- From
- Federal district court
- How it got here
- writ of <i>certiorari</i>
Does 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which gives federal district courts authority to order litigants subject to their jurisdiction to give testimony or produce documents “for use in a foreign or international tribunal,” apply to private commercial arbitral tribunals?
Question before the CourtWhat happened
In August 2017, Luxshare entered into a large-scale business deal with ZF Automotive US, and the deal closed in April 2018. Luxshare allegedly discovered that ZF fraudulently concealed certain material facts, inflating the purchase price. The parties’ purchase agreement required that all disputes be settled by three arbitrators in Germany, and Luxshare intended to bring claims for the losses as a result of ZF’s allegedly wrongful conduct. However, it first sought to obtain discovery from ZF and its senior officers and asked a federal district court to compel discovery under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a).
The holding
Although 28 U.S.C. §1782(a) permits a district court to order discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,” only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body may qualify as such a tribunal, and the arbitration panels in these cases are not such adjudicative bodies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The word “tribunal” in the context of § 1782, with modifiers “foreign or international” is best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority. The statute’s history confirms this understanding, as does analogy to the Federal Arbitration Act. The adjudicative bodies in these cases are not governmental or intergovernmental and thus are not subject to § 1782(a).
Argued by
- Roman Martinez for the Petitioners in 21-401
- Joseph T. Baio for the Petitioners in 21-518
- Edwin S. Kneedler for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners
- Andrew R. Davies for the Respondent in 21-401
- Alexander A. Yanos for the Respondent in 21-518
Case path
- Dec 10, 2021 granted
- Mar 23, 2022 argued
- Jun 13, 2022 decided