In Re Application of Carolina Andraus Lane for an Order Directing Discovery Pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1782

Gavel
|

Unlocking U.S. Discovery for Foreign Cases: The Power of a § 1782 Application

When litigating abroad, access to U.S.-based evidence can make or break your case. Fortunately, American law provides a powerful tool for foreign litigants seeking critical documents and testimony: the 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application.

What Is a § 1782 Application?

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, a party in a foreign legal proceeding can petition a U.S. federal court for discovery—documents, depositions, and more—from individuals or entities “found” within the United States. This includes companies, banks, and yes—even law firms.

To qualify, a § 1782 applicant must show:

  1. The discovery target resides or is found in the U.S. court’s district.
  2. The materials are for use in a foreign proceeding.
  3. The applicant is an interested person, such as a litigant abroad.

Once those requirements are met, courts use their discretion, guided by what are known as the Intel factors, to decide whether to grant the discovery request.

Real World Example We Worked On: IN RE APPLICATION OF CAROLINA ANDRAUS LANE FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782.

In a recent high-profile case (In re Application of Carolina Andraus Lane, No. 22 Misc. 34 (S.D.N.Y.)), a Brazilian woman turned to the Southern District of New York to obtain U.S. discovery for use in a civil case pending in São Paulo, Brazil. She sought financial records and internal communications from major banks and the law firm Fox Horan & Camerini LLP, which was closely tied to her ex-husband and the disputed assets.

What Makes This Case Noteworthy?

Several things:

  • Major U.S. Banks Were Compelled to Comply: Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank were all ordered to produce documents—even though they are not parties to the Brazilian litigation.
  • The Law Firm Was Not Off Limits: Fox Horan, which represented the opposing party, was partially compelled to produce documents about certain trusts and entities at the heart of the dispute. The court explicitly rejected the idea that law firms are immune from scrutiny, stating, “Law firms are not immune from discovery.” This is a powerful reminder that if a law firm is holding relevant (non-privileged) materials—even if it’s acting as counsel—it may be subject to a § 1782 subpoena.

Why This Matters

This case illustrates how § 1782 can be a game-changer in international litigation and asset tracing:

  • You can reach into U.S.-based institutions—even if they’re not part of the foreign lawsuit.
  • You can uncover financial relationships, trust structures, and asset locations.
  • You can potentially pierce the veil of law firms involved in structuring or sheltering disputed assets.

At Gill & Kadochnikov, P.C., we help clients leverage § 1782 applications to uncover hidden assets, compel reluctant institutions, and support litigation abroad with U.S.-based evidence. Whether you’re in the middle of a divorce proceeding in São Paulo or a commercial dispute in Paris, § 1782 may open doors the foreign courts cannot.

Have an international case and need U.S. discovery?
Call us at 718-577-3261 or visit gkfirm.law to schedule a confidential consultation.