Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJudicial Assistance for Foreign Proceedings28 U.S.C. § 178228 U.S.C. § 1782foreign tribunalinternational tribunalinterested personEuropean Commission

Facts

AMD and Intel were competitors in the microprocessor industry. AMD filed an antitrust complaint with the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission alleging that Intel had abused a dominant market position in Europe. After the DG-Competition declined to seek judicial assistance in the United States, AMD sought under § 1782(a) an order requiring Intel, headquartered in the Northern District of California, to produce documents from prior federal litigation in Alabama. Intel argued that § 1782 did not authorize the request because AMD was not a proper applicant, the Commission was not a qualifying tribunal at this stage, the proceeding was not pending or imminent, and the requested materials were not shown to be discoverable in Europe.

Issue

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorized a federal district court to entertain AMD's request for discovery for use in a European Commission competition matter. More specifically, the Court considered whether AMD was an "interested person," whether the Commission qualified as a "tribunal," whether the foreign proceeding had to be pending or imminent, and whether § 1782 imposed a threshold foreign-discoverability requirement.

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), a district court may order a person residing or found in the district to provide testimony or documents for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal upon the application of any interested person. A complainant with significant participation rights qualifies as an interested person; a foreign body acting as a first-instance decisionmaker may qualify as a tribunal; the proceeding need only be within reasonable contemplation, not pending or imminent; and the statute imposes no categorical requirement that the material be discoverable under foreign law. Even when these statutory requirements are met, the district court retains discretion whether to grant assistance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Mira Solano filed a competition complaint with the Trade Practices Directorate of a regional economic union headquartered in Brussels. The Directorate may investigate, accept submissions from complainants, and issue a formal decision dismissing the complaint or finding a violation, and a complainant may seek judicial review if the agency dismisses the matter. Mira applies in federal court in Seattle for documents from Norhaven Systems, which is found in that district.

Is Mira a proper applicant under 28 U.S.C. § 1782?

Explanation. Section 1782 permits an application by any interested person. The majority held that this term is broader than formal litigants and includes a complainant who can trigger an investigation, submit information, and seek judicial review of dismissal. Those participation rights give the complainant a reasonable interest in obtaining assistance. (Derived from Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (2004).)