Founding Attorney
Section 1782 discovery is a distinctive feature of U.S. law: a federal statute that lets participants in foreign proceedings obtain American-style evidence — documents and depositions — from persons located in the United States. For two decades it was among the most powerful tools in cross-border disputes. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in ZF Automotive redrew its boundaries. This explainer covers what Section 1782 discovery still permits, what it no longer permits, and how courts apply it as of August 2026.
What Section 1782 Discovery Requires
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), a federal district court may order a person who resides or is found in its district to give testimony or produce documents for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. The application may come from any interested person or through a letter rogatory. In short, three statutory elements govern: the discovery target’s presence in the district, the for-use requirement, and the applicant’s status as an interested person. Notably, the foreign proceeding need not be pending — it is enough that it is within reasonable contemplation.
The Intel Discretionary Factors
Meeting the statute does not guarantee discovery. Under Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices (2004), district courts weigh four discretionary factors:
- Whether the discovery target is a participant in the foreign proceeding, where the foreign tribunal could order production itself;
- The nature of the foreign tribunal and its receptivity to U.S. judicial assistance;
- Whether the application attempts to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions;
- Whether the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome.
ZF Automotive: The Governmental-Tribunal Limit
In ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. (2022), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the phrase foreign or international tribunal covers only bodies exercising governmental or intergovernmental authority. Two consequences followed. First, private commercial arbitration panels — ICC, DIS, LCIA, and similar institutional or ad hoc commercial tribunals — are outside Section 1782 discovery entirely. Second, in the companion AlixPartners case, the Court held that even an ad hoc investor–State tribunal constituted under a bilateral investment treaty did not qualify. The reason: the treaty parties had not imbued it with governmental authority.
What Remains Available After ZF Automotive
Foreign courts and governmental bodies
Section 1782 discovery remains fully available for litigation before foreign courts. Likewise, it remains available for proceedings before bodies exercising governmental adjudicative authority — the statute’s traditional core. For parties litigating abroad with evidence located in the United States, the tool is as potent as ever.
Investor–State arbitration: a case-by-case question
Whether any treaty-based tribunal can still qualify turns on whether the relevant treaty confers governmental authority on it. Courts applying ZF Automotive have so far declined to extend Section 1782 to ICSID tribunals. The Second Circuit’s Webuild decision in 2023 is the leading example. Even so, the analysis is treaty-specific, and the case law continues to develop. Accordingly, parties should assume the answer is no absent unusual treaty language. They should plan evidence-gathering through the tribunal’s own powers instead.
Practical Consequences for Arbitration Users
The post-ZF landscape changes Section 1782 discovery planning more than outcomes. Instead, parties must pursue U.S. evidence through the arbitral tribunal’s document-production procedures or through contractual disclosure obligations negotiated up front. Where a related foreign court proceeding genuinely exists, a properly framed Section 1782 application tied to that proceeding remains an option. Courts scrutinize applications that appear to dress up arbitration discovery as court-related. In addition, sanctions exposure and privilege waiver deserve attention before any U.S. discovery campaign, a subject we address across our international arbitration practice.
Transnational Matters PLLC advises on Section 1782 discovery strategy on both the applicant and respondent side, and on evidence planning in arbitrations where the statute no longer reaches. This article is general information, not legal advice. The availability of discovery depends on the district, the tribunal, and the posture of the foreign proceeding. Reviewed August 2026.
