Intel v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

542 U.S. 241 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1958, Congress created a Commission on International Rules of Judicial Procedure (Rules Commission) to 'investigate and study existing practices of judicial assistance and cooperation between the United States and foreign countries with a view to achieving improvements.' Congress unanimously adopted legislation recommended by the Rules Commission; the legislation included a complete revision of § 1782. In its current form, § 1782(a) provides that a federal district court 'may order' a person residing or found in the district to give testimony or produce documents 'for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal . . . upon the application of any interested person.' P filed an antitrust complaint against D with the Directorate-General for Competition (DG-Competition) of the Commission of the European Communities (European Commission or Commission). P alleged that D had abused its dominant position in the European market through loyalty rebates, exclusive purchasing agreements with manufacturers and retailers, price discrimination, and standard-setting cartels. P recommended that the DG-Competition seek discovery of documents D had produced in a private antitrust suit, titled Intergraph Corp. v Intel Corp. The DG-Competition declined to seek judicial assistance in the United States. P applied to the United States District Court invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) [28 USCS § 1782(a)], for an order requiring D to produce potentially relevant documents. The District Court denied P's application. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that determination and remanded the case, instructing the District Court to rule on the merits of P's application. The Court of Appeals noted that § 1782(a) includes matters before bodies of a quasi-judicial or administrative nature, and there was no requirement that the proceeding be pending. It rejected D's argument that §1782(a) called for a threshold showing that the documents P sought in the California federal court would have been discoverable by P in the European Commission investigation had those documents been located within the Union. D’s position as known as the 'foreign-discoverability' rule. A Magistrate Judge found P's application 'overbroad,' and recommended an order directing P to submit a more specific discovery request confined to documents directly relevant to the European Commission investigation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in view of the division among the Circuits on the question whether § 1782(a) contains a foreign-discoverability requirement.