[DOWNLOAD] "Application of Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann International" by Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Application of Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann International
- Author : Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 17, 1999
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas In support of a proceeding before the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the Republic of Kazakhstan (""Kazakhstan"") instituted the underlying action in the Southern District of Texas for assistance in discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Kazakhstan requested that the district court order Murdock Baker, Jr., not a party to the arbitration, to submit to a deposition and produce certain documents related to Kazakhstan's opponent Biedermann International (""Biedermann""). The district court ordered the requested discovery and denied Biedermann's request for reconsideration and motion for emergency stay. On expedited appeal of the district court's final order,1 this court stayed the discovery. Having reviewed the parties' submissions and examined the language and history of § 1782, we elect to follow the Second Circuit's recent decision that § 1782 does not apply to private international arbitrations. See National Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., ___ F.3d ___, No. 98-7469, 1999 WL 27053. (2d Cir. Jan. 26, 1999). Review of the scope of § 1782 is de novo. See Pritchard v. U.S. Trustee (In re England), 153 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 1998). When interpreting a statute, this court examines the plain, common sense meaning of the statute's language. See id. at 235 (""Courts properly assume, absent sufficient indication to the contrary, that Congress intends the words in its enactments to carry their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning."") (internal punctuation and citations omitted). If this language is unambiguous, the inquiry is ended. See United States v. Investment Enters., Inc., 10 F.3d 263, 274 (5th Cir. 1994) (""Except in rare circumstances, judicial inquiry is complete when the terms of a statute are unambiguous.""). As the Second Circuit observed, however, the meaning of ""foreign or international tribunal"" is ambiguous and must be construed in light of the background and purpose of the statute.