Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
939 F.3d 520 *; 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30002 **; 2019 WL 4924395
IN RE: APPLICATION OF ANTONIO DEL VALLE RUIZ AND OTHERS FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Nos. 18-mc-85, 18-mc-127 - Edgardo Ramos, Judge.
Banco Santander S.A. ("Santander") acquired Banco Popular Español, S.A. ("BPE") after a government-forced sale. Petitioners, a group of Mexican nationals and two investment and asset management firms, initiated or sought to intervene in various foreign proceedings contesting the legality of the acquisition. Petitioners then filed in the Southern District of New York two applications under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking discovery from Santander and its New York-based affiliate, Santander Investment Securities Inc. ("SIS"), concerning the financial status of BPE. The district court (Ramos, J.) denied the applications for the most part, concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Santander. The court granted discovery against SIS and in doing so rejected Santander's argument that § 1782 does not allow for extraterritorial discovery. These consolidated appeals follow.
We are first asked to delineate the contours of § 1782's requirement that a person or entity "resides or is found" within the district in which discovery is sought. We hold that this language extends § 1782's reach to the limits [**2] of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process. We nonetheless conclude that Santander's contacts with the Southern District of New York were insufficient to subject it to the district court's personal jurisdiction.
We are next tasked with deciding whether § 1782 may be used to reach documents located outside of the United States. We hold that there is no per se bar to the extraterritorial application of § 1782, and the district court may exercise its discretion as to whether to allow such discovery. We conclude that the district court acted well within its discretion here in allowing discovery from SIS.
Having so held, we affirm the district court's orders.
In re Ruiz, 342 F. Supp. 3d 448, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180262 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018)
discovery, district court, personal jurisdiction, resides, extraterritoriality, contacts, due process, nonparties, documents, abroad, entity, proceedings, quotation, marks, bid, courts, limits, tag, forum contacts, factors, due diligence
Civil Procedure, In Rem & Personal Jurisdiction, In Personam Actions, Due Process, International Law, Dispute Resolution, Evidence, Assistance Obtaining Evidence, Jurisdiction, In Personam Actions, Pleadings, Service of Process, Methods of Service, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Minimum Contacts, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Authority to Regulate