Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004)
Intel Corp. v.
Does 28 U.S.C. a7 1782 authorize a U.S. district court to order discovery from a person found in its district for use in a proceeding before the European Commission, upon application by a private complainant, even when no foreign proceeding is yet pending and without requiring that the sought information be discoverable under foreign law?
Under 28 U.S.C. a7 1782(a), a U.S. district court in the district where a person resides or is found may order that person to give testimony or produce documents for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal upon application by a foreign or international tribunal or any interested person. The statute: (1) applies to adjudicative bodies that act as first-instance decisionmakers subject to judicial review; (2) permits applications by private complainants who possess significant participation rights in the foreign process; (3) does not require the foreign proceeding to be pending or imminentit suffices that it is within reasonable contemplation; (4) does not impose a foreign discoverability or party-status requirement; and (5) vests district courts with discretion, guided by factors including (i) whether the target is a participant in the foreign proceeding, (ii) the nature, character, and receptivity of the foreign tribunal to U.S. assistance, (iii) whether the request circumvents foreign proof-gathering limits or other policies, and (iv) whether the discovery is unduly intrusive or burdensome.
Yes. The European Commission, when acting as a first-instance decisionmaker in competition matters subject to judicial review, is a foreign or international tribunal within a7 1782s meaning; AMD, as a complainant with participation rights, is an interested person ; a qualifying foreign proceeding need not be pending but may be reasonably contemplated; and a7 1782 does not impose a foreign-discoverability requirement. The Ninth Circuits decision was affirmed.
Intel is the cornerstone of U.S. law on cross-border discovery under a7 1782. It clarifies that private complainants may seek U.S. discovery for use before foreign adjudicative bodies, that proceedings need only be reasonably contemplated, and that foreign discoverability is not a prerequisite. It also supplies the now-standard Intel factors guiding district courts discretion. In practice, Intel significantly expanded the availability of U.S.-style discovery in aid of foreign matters, influencing transnational litigation strategy, comity analysis, and the interface between U.S. procedure and foreign legal systems. Subsequent cases have refined Intels reachnotably, the Supreme Court later held that private commercial arbitral panels are not foreign or international tribunals under a7 1782but Intels interpretive framework and discretionary factors remain bedrock doctrine.