National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.

Citation165 F.3d 184
Decision Date26 January 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-7468,98-7468
PartiesNATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. and NBC Europe, Inc., Appellants, v. BEAR STEARNS & CO., INC.; Merrill Lynch & Company; Salomon Brothers, Inc.; SBC Warburg, Inc.; Violy Byorum & Partners; and TV Azteca S.A. de C.V., Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Frank H. Wohl, Lankler Siffert & Wohl, New York, NY (Harold E. Schimkat, Lankler Siffert & Wohl, Susan E. Weiner, National Broadcasting Company, Inc., New York, NY, of counsel), for Appellants.

Alan H. Kaufman, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, New York, NY and William C. Fredericks, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, New York, NY (E. Michael Bradley and Mark S. Mandel, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Yocheved Cohen and David Gruenstein, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY, Keith M. Fleischman, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, of counsel), for Appellees.

Before: MINER and CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and CHATIGNY, District Judge. *

JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

The question presented is whether a commercial arbitration conducted in Mexico under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce, a private organization headquartered in France, is a "proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal" as those words are used in 28 U.S.C. § 1782. 1 We hold that it is not.

National Broadcasting Company, Inc. and NBC Europe, Inc. (jointly, "NBC"), respondents in an arbitration proceeding in Mexico initiated by the Mexican television broadcasting company TV Azteca S.A. de C.V. ("Azteca"), appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge ) quashing subpoenas directed by NBC to Azteca's investment bankers and advisors, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch & Company, Salomon Brothers, Inc., SBC Warburg, Inc. and Violy Byorum & Partners (the "Third Parties") 2 and denying NBC's cross-motion to enforce the subpoenas. The district court quashed the subpoenas, concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which gives United States courts the authority to order testimony or production of evidence for use "in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal," does not apply to private commercial arbitration under the auspices of non-governmental organizations. In re: The Application of National Broadcasting Co., No. M-77, 1998 WL 19994 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 1998). We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1994, NBC and Azteca, a then-privately-held Mexican television broadcasting company, entered into an agreement under which NBC would provide Azteca with programming and other services. In exchange, NBC's compensation included the option to purchase up to 10% of Azteca's shares at any time before May 1997 according to a preset pricing formula. The agreement also provided that any disputes would be resolved through private commercial arbitration administered by the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC"), a private organization based in Paris, France, under ICC rules and Mexican law. Purporting to act under the agreements, NBC on April 3, 1997 sought to purchase 1% of Azteca's shares. On April 28, 1997, Azteca, alleging that NBC had failed to perform under the agreement, initiated arbitration against NBC in Mexico pursuant to the 1994 agreement. On July 15, 1997, NBC filed its answer, and on July 29, 1997, amended its answer and included counterclaims; the counterclaims alleged that Azteca improperly induced NBC to forgo exercising its option for the full 10% of Azteca's shares by leading NBC to believe, among other things, that (i) Azteca had no plans to conduct an initial public offering of securities ("IPO"), and (ii) Azteca's estimate of the value of the company's shares was not significantly above the contractually agreed exercise price. Azteca replied that it never contemplated a public offering or misstated the value of its shares during the relevant time period.

In anticipation of the ICC arbitration proceeding in Mexico but prior to the appointment of the arbitration panel, NBC applied ex parte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Deborah A. Batts, Judge ) for authorization to serve document subpoenas on the six third-party financial institutions engaged by Azteca with regard to its IPO plans. On August 1, 1997, Judge Batts granted the application, and NBC later served the subpoenas, which demanded the production of documents bearing on the timing of Azteca's IPO plans and the valuation of Azteca shares. Within a month, Azteca and five of the third-party financial institutions moved to quash the subpoenas; NBC cross-moved to compel compliance with them.

On January 16, 1998, Judge Sweet granted the motion to quash the subpoenas and denied NBC's cross-motion, concluding that the term "foreign or international tribunal" in 28 U.S.C. § 1782, a statute authorizing district courts to assist discovery efforts in connection with proceedings before such tribunals, does not encompass private international commercial arbitration. This timely appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 de novo. See Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. Ribadeneira, 105 F.3d 833, 834 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam); United States v. Proyect, 989 F.2d 84, 87 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 822, 114 S.Ct. 80, 126 L.Ed.2d 49 (1993).

Ordinarily, because commercial arbitration is a creature of contract, only the parties to the arbitration contract are bound to participate. See, e.g., AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986) ("[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir.1995). If discovery were to be obtained from the Third Parties--none of which was a party to the arbitration agreement at issue here--the authority to compel their participation would have to be found in a source other than the parties' arbitration agreement. That source, NBC claims, is § 1782.

A.

Appellees first argue that § 1782, regardless of its meaning, is not available to NBC because the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., which provides a role for the federal courts in arbitration, is the exclusive means for obtaining evidence from non-parties in connection with private arbitration proceedings.

The FAA applies to private commercial arbitration conducted in this country; and it applies also to arbitrations in certain foreign countries by virtue of legislation implementing the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 7 I.L.M. 1046 (implemented at 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-08) (the "New York Convention"), and the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Jan. 30, 1975, 14 I.L.M. 336 (implemented at 9 U.S.C. §§ 301-07) (the "IAC"). The statute principally provides for the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate, supplying judicial assistance to facilitate arbitration, and providing for confirmation, vacation, or modification of the arbitrators' resulting decisions. Section 7 of the FAA 3 provides statutory authority for invoking the powers of a federal district court to assist arbitrators in obtaining evidence. Under this provision, arbitrators may subpoena witnesses and direct those witnesses to bring material documentary evidence to an arbitral hearing; if witnesses fail to comply, the district court for the district in which the arbitrators are sitting may compel compliance with such subpoenas. See 9 U.S.C. § 7.

The methods for obtaining evidence under § 7 are more limited than those under § 1782 in two, and possibly three, ways. First, § 7 explicitly confers authority only upon arbitrators; by necessary implication, the parties to an arbitration may not employ this provision to subpoena documents or witnesses. See 9 U.S.C. § 7; see also Burton v. Bush, 614 F.2d 389, 390 (4th Cir.1980) ("While an arbitration panel may subpoena documents or witnesses, the litigating parties have no comparable privilege.") (citations omitted), cited with approval in St. Mary's Med. Ctr. of Evansville, Inc. v. Disco Aluminum Prods. Co., 969 F.2d 585, 591 (7th Cir.1992); Beth H. Friedman, The Preclusive Effect of Arbitral Determinations in Subsequent Federal Securities Litigation, 55 Fordham L.Rev. 655, 672 & n. 126 (1987) ("While an arbitration panel has the power to subpoena documents or witnesses, the parties to the arbitration lack the advantage of discovery.") (footnotes omitted). Second, § 7 explicitly confers enforcement authority only upon the "district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting." Third, the express language of § 7 refers only to testimony before the arbitrators and to material physical evidence such as books and documents, brought before them by a witness; open questions remain as to whether § 7 may be invoked as authority for compelling pre-hearing depositions and pre-hearing document discovery, especially where such evidence is sought from non-parties. Compare Integrity Ins. Co. v. American Centennial Ins. Co., 885 F.Supp. 69, 72-73 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (arbitrator may not rely on § 7 to obtain pre-hearing depositions from non-parties), with Stanton v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 685 F.Supp. 1241, 1242-43 (S.D.Fla.1988) (§ 7 permits pre-hearing document production from non-parties), and Meadows Indem. Co. v. Nutmeg Ins. Co., 157 F.R.D. 42, 45 (M.D.Tenn.1994) (§ 7 power to compel document production from third parties at hearing encompasses lesser power to compel production prior to hearing).

If the broader evidence-gathering mechanisms provided for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Stolt-Nielsen Sa v. Celanese Ag
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 21, 2005
    ...and pre-hearing document discovery, especially where such evidence is sought from non-parties." Nat'l Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.1999). In this appeal, Stolt asks us to resolve the question left open in Bear Stearns and hold that Section 7 does n......
  • Porzig v. Dresdner Kleinwort, Benson, N. America
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 7, 2007
    ...acrimonious process. See DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 821 (2d Cir.1997); National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 165 F.3d 184, 190-91 (2d Cir.1999). To encourage and support the use of arbitration by consenting parties, this Court, therefore, use......
  • Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 15, 2001
    ...to the basic principle that an undefined statutory phrase must be given its "ordinary or natural meaning." National Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.1999) (citing FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994)). Although the Court agrees w......
  • Abdul Latif Jameel Transp. Co. v. Fedex Corp. (In re Application to Obtain Discovery for United Statese in Foreign Proceedings), 19-5315
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 19, 2019
    ...v. Biedermann Int’l , 168 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 1999) ("Biedermann "); National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. , 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999) ("NBC "). Therefore, we will explain why the counterarguments do not dissuade us from our conclusion.FedEx Corp. relies on NBC a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 firm's commentaries
  • Weapons Of International Arbitration
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 15, 2012
    ...tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation...” 9 See Nat'l Broadcasting Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that §1782 did not apply to private 10 See, e.g., In re Babcock Borsig AG, 583 F. Supp.2d 233 (D. Mass. 2008): In r......
  • The Growing Circuit Split About ' 1782 ' Can It Be Used For Private Arbitration?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 3, 2021
    ...Fifth Circuits The issue first came up in 1999, five years before Intel. In National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999), NBC sought to obtain evidence from Bear Stearns for use in a private arbitration in Mexico. The district court held that the ......
  • The Growing Circuit Split About ' 1782 ' Can It Be Used For Private Arbitration?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 3, 2021
    ...Fifth Circuits The issue first came up in 1999, five years before Intel. In National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999), NBC sought to obtain evidence from Bear Stearns for use in a private arbitration in Mexico. The district court held that the ......
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1782: A Powerful Tool In Global Disputes
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 1, 2015
    ...Fed. Appx. 31 (5th Cir. 2009) (private Swiss arbitral tribunal not a "tribunal" under §1782); Nat'l Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999) (private commercial arbitration proceedings under the auspices of International Chamber of Commerce not a "tribunal"); In re ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • January 1, 2013
    ...(10th Cir. 2001), 74 Natcontainer Corp. v. Cont’l Can Co., 362 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), 14 National Broad. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999), 201 National Union Elec. Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 494 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff’d in part and rev’d in ......
  • ORDINARY MEANING AND ORDINARY PEOPLE.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 171 No. 2, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...recent decision that [section] 1782 does not apply to private international arbitrations."), Nat'l Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184,185 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that a commercial arbitration held In Mexico under a French organization does not constitute a "proceeding in a f......
  • INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: SUPREME COURT HOLDS DISTRICT COURTS MAY NOT ORDER DISCOVERY FOR USE IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy Vol. 27 No. 2, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.") (2) See Nat'l Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir. 1999) [hereinafter NBC] (concluding "when Congress in 1964 enacted the modern version of [section] 1782, it intended to cover gover......
  • Foreign Discovery Issues
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • January 1, 2013
    ...Micro Devices v. Intel Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21437, at *5-8 (N.D. Cal. 2004). 46. See , e.g. , Nat’l Broad. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999); Republic of Khazakstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999). 47. See In re Oxus Gold PLC, 2007 WL 1037387 (D.N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT