ARBITRATION-DISCOVERY

ZF Auto. US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2861 (S. Ct. June 13, 2022) (Barrett, J.)  Congress has long allowed federal courts to assist foreign or international adjudicative bodies in evidence gathering. The current statute, 28 U. S. C. §1782, permits district courts to order testimony or the production of evidence “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” These consolidated cases require us to decide whether private adjudicatory bodies count as “foreign or international tribunals.” They do not. Both cases before us involve a party seeking discovery in the United States for use in arbitration proceedings abroad. In both, the party seeking discovery invoked §1782, which permits a district court to order the production of certain evidence “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” And in both, the party resisting discovery argued that the arbitral panel at issue did not qualify as a “foreign or international tribunal” under the statute. We begin with the question whether the phrase “foreign or international tribunal” in §1782 includes private adjudicative bodies or only governmental or intergovernmental bodies. If the former, all agree that §1782 permits discovery to proceed in both cases. If the latter, we must determine whether the arbitral panels in these cases qualify as governmental or intergovernmental bodies. Section 1782(a) provides: “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 key phrase for purposes of this case is “foreign or international tribunal.” “Foreign tribunal” and “international tribunal” complement one another; the former is a tribunal imbued with governmental authority by one nation, and the latter is a tribunal imbued with governmental authority by multiple nations. We hold that §1782 requires a “foreign or international tribunal” to be governmental or intergovernmental. Thus, a “foreign tribunal” is one that exercises governmental authority conferred by a single nation, and an “international tribunal” is one that exercises governmental authority conferred by two or more nations. Private adjudicatory bodies do not fall within §1782. That leaves the question whether the adjudicative bodies in the cases before us are governmental or intergovernmental. They are not. Only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” under §1782. Such bodies are those that exercise governmental authority conferred by one nation or multiple nations. Neither the private commercial arbitral panel in the first case nor the ad hoc arbitration panel in the second case qualifies. We reverse the order of the District Court in No. 21-401 denying the motion to quash, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 21- 518. It is so ordered.