Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Speaker

Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 02-572, Intel Corporation versus Advanced Micro Devices will be announced by Justice Ginsburg.

Argument of Justice Ginsburg

Mr. Ginsburg: This case concerns the authority Federal District Courts have to order production of evidence for use in foreign and international tribunals.

In 1964 seeking to improve judicial assistance between the United States and foreign countries, Congress completely revised the governing statutes and rules.

As part of the revision, Congress overhauled 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 which now provides that a Federal District Court may order persons to give testimony or produce documents for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.

The parties before us divide on the question whether the Congress placed certain categorical limits on that discovery.

Respondent, Advanced Micro Devices or AMD filed an antitrust complaint against petitioner, Intel with the European Commission.

Acting to its Directorate-General for competition, the Commission conducts investigations into alleged violations of European competition rules and may issue binding decisions enforceable through fines.

Final decisions made by the Commission are reviewable in European Union Courts.

AMD asked the Directorate-General to seek Court's investigation documents Intel had produced in private litigation in an Alabama Federal District Court.

When the Directorate-General declined to do so, AMD itself applied to a California Federal District Court for an order directing Intel to produce those documents.

Intel moved to dismiss AMD’s application urging that 1782 did not authorize the discovery AMD sought.

The District Court granted Intel’s motion, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and instructed the District Court to rule on the merits of AMD’s application.

Affirming the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, we now hold that Congress authorized but did not require the District Court to provide discovery aid to a complainant such as AMD during a European Commission investigation that will end in a dispositive ruling.

Intel raises four questions about the scope of discovery aid Congress authorized.

First, does a complainant before the European Commission qualify for such assistance?

Second, is the Commission a tribunal for purposes of the statute?

We answer yes to these first two questions.

Third, must a matter in a foreign tribunal be pending or imminent before better courts may give aid?

And fourth, did Congress bar District Courts from ordering discovery when the applicant would not be able to obtain the documents or they located in a foreign country?

We answer no to those questions.

Our answers are based on the language of 1782 confirmed by the statute’s context.

1782 authorizes assistance to any interested person.

A complainant such as AMD, who has significant participation rights in European Commission proceedings is surely an interested person and therefore, qualified as a discovery requester under 1782.

And the Commission to the extent that it acts as a first instance decision maker, qualifies as a tribunal under the statute.

As the statute’s legislative history corroborates, Congress intended aid for foreign administrative as well as judicial proceedings that eventuate in decisions binding on the participants.

The proceeding for which discovery is sought moreover, need not be pending or imminent when discovery aid is sought.

Congress made judicial assistance available when a matter in a foreign tribunal is at an investigative pre-adjudication stage, so long as a dispositive proceeding is within reasonable contemplation.

Intel argues that discovery aid is categorically barred when the applicant would not be able to obtain the documents where they are located in the foreign jurisdiction or where they sought in a domestic litigation analogous to the foreign proceeding.

We count it significant that Congress expressly shielded privilege materials but did not limit the District Court’s production authority to materials discoverable in the foreign proceedings, nor did Congress direct the United States Courts to engage in comparative analysis to determine whether analogous domestic proceedings exist.

Comparisons of that order can be frought with danger given the considerable differences in U.S. procedural modes and those holding weigh abroad.

We know however that a District Court is not required to grant an application for discovery aid simply because it has authority to do so.

On the merits, this case bears closest scrutiny than it has received to date.

The Court’s opinion lists factors that merit consideration in ruling on AMD’s request.

For example, there is the stronger course for gaining evidence in the United States from a nonparticipant in a proceeding abroad, a person who was beyond the foreign tribunal jurisdiction will reach as Intel surely is not.

And the rest activity of the foreign government, court, or agency to Federal Court judicial assistants merits respectful attention.

We leave to the lower courts taking account of the guides our opinion provides to assure an erring adequate to determine whether assistance is appropriate in this case.

Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring to the judgment; Justice Breyer has filed a dissenting opinion.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.