[21-401] ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.

ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.

Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Mar 23, 2022.
Decided on Jun 13, 2022.

Petitioner: ZS Automotive US, Inc., et al..
Respondent: Luxshare, Ltd..

Advocates:

• Roman Martinez (for the Petitioners in 21-401)
• Joseph T. Baio (for the Petitioners in 21-518)
• Edwin S. Kneedler (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)
• Andrew R. Davies (for the Respondent in 21-401)
• Alexander A. Yanos (for the Respondent in 21-518)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In August 2017, Luxshare entered into a large-scale business deal with ZF Automotive US, and the deal closed in April 2018. Luxshare allegedly discovered that ZF fraudulently concealed certain material facts, inflating the purchase price.

The parties’ purchase agreement required that all disputes be settled by three arbitrators in Germany, and Luxshare intended to bring claims for the losses as a result of ZF’s allegedly wrongful conduct. However, it first sought to obtain discovery from ZF and its senior officers and asked a federal district court to compel discovery under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a).

Question

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which gives federal district courts authority to order litigants subject to their jurisdiction to give testimony or produce documents “for use in a foreign or international tribunal,” apply to private commercial arbitral tribunals?

Conclusion

Although 28 U.S.C. §1782(a) permits a district court to order discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,” only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body may qualify as such a tribunal, and the arbitration panels in these cases are not such adjudicative bodies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.

The word “tribunal” in the context of § 1782, with modifiers “foreign or international” is best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority. The statute’s history confirms this understanding, as does analogy to the Federal Arbitration Act. The adjudicative bodies in these cases are not governmental or intergovernmental and thus are not subject to § 1782(a).