Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Roger Alford’s New Article on 28 U.S.C. sec. 1782: Ancillary Discovery To Prove Denial of Justice

February 8, 2013/in /by Charles Kotuby
image_pdfimage_print

Roger Alford has just posted on SSRN his latest article, “Ancillary Discovery to Prove Denial of Justice,” which has been published in the Virginia Journal of International Law. It analyzes Section 1782 discovery proceedings in the context of BIT arbitration and argues that there is now uniform agreement among federal courts that investment arbitration panels are “international tribunals” within the meaning of Section 1782. But as he points out today on opiniojuris, the article has relevance outside that context, too. As recent cases have demonstrated, this mechanism is becoming a typical (and powerful) tool for international litigators to obtain discovery in aid of any non-U.S. proceeding. This is a fabulous article on the recent wave developments in regard to this mechanism, and reaches a number of salient conclusions regarding the growing use of ancillary discovery in international adjudication.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Charles Kotuby https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Charles Kotuby2013-02-08 21:16:552013-02-08 21:16:55Roger Alford’s New Article on 28 U.S.C. sec. 1782: Ancillary Discovery To Prove Denial of Justice

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Sciences Po PILAGG Workshop Series, Spring 2013 Link to: Sciences Po PILAGG Workshop Series, Spring 2013 Sciences Po PILAGG Workshop Series, Spring 2013 Link to: First Issue of 2013’s Journal du Droit International Link to: First Issue of 2013’s Journal du Droit International First Issue of 2013’s Journal du Droit International
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top