This is something I have posted about previously and something I take a specific interest in. As I said before, it’s certainly interesting to see this case law developing.
Here at Alvarez & Marsal, we are seeing an increase in discovery-related work associated with international arbitration matters - be it in the form of helping formulate and respond to issues, managing relevant document sets - specifically looking for documents to be exhibited, or analysing complex and disparate data sets to build models used during expert evidence by the relevant accountants and/or economists.
Data and documents can be central to any legal proceeding regardless of whether there is a common law discovery or disclosure process, and it is essential that these are appropriately collected, managed and analysed to avoid subsequent issues due to incompleteness, inaccuracy or error!
See another piece I have done on Passle here: https://amonsocial.alvarezandmarsal.com/post/102g4x6/4th-circuit-foreign-discovery-ruling-champions-international-arbitration
The Second Circuit’s In re Guo decision highlights the uncertainty of Section 1782 relief for parties in foreign private arbitration. Applicants in the Second Circuit can expect that courts will continue to deny Section 1782 applications where documents are sought in aid of a foreign private arbitration, but applicants in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits will likely be able to obtain such discovery. In any event, given the deepening circuit split interpreting the term “foreign tribunal” differently across the country, there is a growing likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will address the conflicting interpretations in an upcoming term.