The American Influences on International Commercial Arbitration Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Table of Citations
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Formation and Transformation of the Status of International and Domestic Arbitration in the United States
- 3 Wilko v. Swan, Scherk v. Alberto-Culver, and Mitsubishi v. Soler: Crafting a Level Playing Field
- 4 Procedural Change and 28 U.S.C. §1782: The Taking of Evidence v. Common Law Discovery
- 5 The Gathering of Evidence v. Common Law Discovery
- 6 What Has Really Happened? The Effects of a Trilogy Examined
- 7 The New Unorthodox Conception of Common Law Discovery in International Arbitration
- 8 And Now How Do We Avoid 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 in International Commercial Arbitration?
- 9 Perjury & Arbitration: The Honor System Where the Arbitrators Have the Honor and the Parties Have the System
- 10 Developments in the Apportionment of Jurisdiction Between Arbitrators and Courts Concerning the Validity of a Contract Containing an Arbitration Clause, and Transformations Regarding the Severability Doctrine
- 11 U.S. Arbitration Law and Its Dialogue with the New York Convention: The Development of Four Issues
- Conclusion
- Appendix A Duelo a Garrotazos
- Appendix B Selected Cases
- Appendix C The New York Convention, The Federal Arbitration Act, and 28 U.S.C. §1782
- Appendix D Amendments to 28 U.S.C. §1782
- Appendix E Selected Rules of Civil Procedure
- Appendix F Geneva Convention of 1927
- Appendix G Selections from the Legislative History of the Federal Arbitration Act
- Index
- References
5 - The Gathering of Evidence v. Common Law Discovery
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Table of Citations
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Formation and Transformation of the Status of International and Domestic Arbitration in the United States
- 3 Wilko v. Swan, Scherk v. Alberto-Culver, and Mitsubishi v. Soler: Crafting a Level Playing Field
- 4 Procedural Change and 28 U.S.C. §1782: The Taking of Evidence v. Common Law Discovery
- 5 The Gathering of Evidence v. Common Law Discovery
- 6 What Has Really Happened? The Effects of a Trilogy Examined
- 7 The New Unorthodox Conception of Common Law Discovery in International Arbitration
- 8 And Now How Do We Avoid 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 in International Commercial Arbitration?
- 9 Perjury & Arbitration: The Honor System Where the Arbitrators Have the Honor and the Parties Have the System
- 10 Developments in the Apportionment of Jurisdiction Between Arbitrators and Courts Concerning the Validity of a Contract Containing an Arbitration Clause, and Transformations Regarding the Severability Doctrine
- 11 U.S. Arbitration Law and Its Dialogue with the New York Convention: The Development of Four Issues
- Conclusion
- Appendix A Duelo a Garrotazos
- Appendix B Selected Cases
- Appendix C The New York Convention, The Federal Arbitration Act, and 28 U.S.C. §1782
- Appendix D Amendments to 28 U.S.C. §1782
- Appendix E Selected Rules of Civil Procedure
- Appendix F Geneva Convention of 1927
- Appendix G Selections from the Legislative History of the Federal Arbitration Act
- Index
- References
Summary
The Second and Fifth Circuits' pre-Intel rulings in Nat'l Board Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. and Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann, respectively, were challenged and submitted to sustained critical analysis by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in In Re: Application of Roz Trading Ltd.
IN RE: ROZ TRADING LTD.
In this important recent case, petitioner Roz Trading Ltd. (“Roz Trading”) successfully secured an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782(a) directing respondent the Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”) to produce documents for use in foreign arbitral proceedings involving Roz Trading and the government of Uzbekistan. The facts are succinct.
Petitioner Coca-Cola Export Company (a subsidiary of Coca-Cola) and the government of Uzbekistan executed a Joint Venture Agreement entered into among these entities. Roz Trading, however, averred that the government of Uzbekistan without justification and through violent means confiscated its interest in the joint venture. In this regard, petitioner further alleged that its employees had no recourse but to flee Uzbekistan because they rightfully feared for their lives. Because of the haste under which Roz Trading's employees left Uzbekistan and the disconcerting circumstances surrounding their departure, documents were left behind and petitioner's employees were unable to retrieve them from Uzbekistan. Roz Trading further asserts that the Coca-Cola Export Company and the government of Uzbekistan, together with Coca-Cola, conspired to eliminate Roz Trading from the joint venture.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The American Influences on International Commercial ArbitrationDoctrinal Developments and Discovery Methods, pp. 51 - 61Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009