Spencer Perkins is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782, parties engaged in (or expected to engage in) foreign litigation are empowered to seek discovery in the United States for use in the foreign litigation. Specifically, under § 1782, foreign litigants may apply directly to any district court in the U.S. where a person or entity with information relevant to the foreign litigation can be located or found, and that court can order such discovery. If discovery is granted (which is usually the case), the party providing the discovery will typically bear the costs of providing it. As with any other discovery in the United States, the compliance costs are considered a “normal cost of doing business” and are not usually shifted to the party seeking discovery. However, Rule 45(d)(2)(B) does allow for nonparties to shift costs for discovery compliance in certain circumstances—i.e., where there is a “significant expense” arising from a specific order “compelling production or inspection.” Yet, despite a fee-shifting mechanism for nonparties, courts have granted a very limited number of requests for the recovery of fees and costs for compliance in a § 1782 proceeding under Rule 45.