Judicial Assistance

• Author: International Law Group

A Taiwanese company, Four Pillars Enterprises Co., Ltd. (FPE), sought to take depositions and to have documents produced under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 from Avery Dennison Corporation (ADC) for use in FPE's suits against ADC in China and Taiwan. Both FPE and ADC manufacture adhesive tape and labels. Several years ago, they began working on an Asian joint venture that later went sour over charges of stealing trade secrets.

FPE sued ADC in an Ohio federal court over misappropriation of trade secrets, and the jury found for ADC. The Ohio court entered a protective order for any material produced by ADC. It required that the parties could only use the confidential material in the Ohio proceedings.

FPE later brought the Section 1782 petition in a California federal court. A magistrate judge granted FPE the right to serve three of its document requests, but denied several others. FPE appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, affirms.

Section 1782 provides in part that: "(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 tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal or upon application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing produced, before a person appointed by the court ..."

The Court agrees with the lower court's application of Section 1782 here. "The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying much of the relief sought by [FPE] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782. Congress gave the federal district courts broad discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, to honor a request for assistance under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782. (Cite)." [Slip op. 7]

"Here, the magistrate was presented with a set of special circumstances that he was entitled to take into account. [ADC] had...