Intel Corporation V. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 02-572
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 02-572 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States INTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONER JOSEPH KATTAN SETH P. WAXMAN GIBSON, DUNN & Counsel of Record CRUTCHER LLP JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. JONATHAN H. SIEGELBAUM Washington, D.C. 20036 WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING (202) 955-8500 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 JAMES A. MURRAY (202) 663-6000 INTEL CORPORATION 2200 Mission College Blvd., SC4-202 Santa Clara, CA 95052-8119 (408) 653-5370 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Section 1782 of Title 28 authorizes federal district courts to order discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign . tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether section 1782 entitles a private antitrust complainant to pre-litigation civil discovery in the United States that would be unavailable both (a) under any provi- sion of U.S. law if the complaint had been lodged with U.S., rather than foreign, law enforcement authorities and (b) un- der the law of the foreign jurisdiction itself if the evidence were located there rather than in the United States. 2. Whether section 1782 allows civil discovery by a pri- vate person when no “proceeding” before a foreign “tribu- nal” is pending or even imminent. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS The only parties to this proceeding are identified in the caption. RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Petitioner Intel Corporation is a publicly traded corpo- ration, and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED .....................................................i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS.....................................ii RULE 29.6 STATEMENT.........................................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................iv OPINIONS BELOW...................................................................1 JURISDICTION..........................................................................1 STATUTE INVOLVED ............................................................2 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................3 STATEMENT..............................................................................5 1. The History of Section 1782................................................5 2. AMD’s Complaint to the EC...............................................9 3. AMD’s Efforts to Obtain Pre-Litigation Civil Discovery under Section 1782 ..........................................14 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................15 ARGUMENT..............................................................................18 I. SECTION 1782 DOES NOT AUTHORIZE DIS- COVERY THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UN- AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE NON-LITIGANTS UN- DER BOTH U.S. LAW AND FOREIGN LAW. ....................19 II. DISCOVERY IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIVE “PROCEEDING IN A FOR- EIGN OR INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.” .........................27 III. THIS COURT SHOULD ALTERNATIVELY EX- ERCISE ITS SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY TO IM- POSE RULES OF PRACTICE IN THE APPLICA- TION OF SECTION 1782. ....................................................34 CONCLUSION..........................................................................38 (iii) iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) AKZO Chemie BV v. E.C. Comm’n, [1987] 1 C.M.L.R. 231 ............................................10, 11, 15, 23, 37 Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) ....................................................................................24 Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) .................36 British Am. Tobacco Co. v. E.C. Comm’n, [1988] 4 C.M.L.R. 24 ................................................................12, 19 Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)...........................36 Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)....................36 France v. E.C. Comm’n, [1998] 4 C.M.L.R. 829 ....................12 Hasselblad (GB) Ltd. v. Orbinson, [1985] Q.B. 475 ........13, 30 Heintz Van Landewyck S.À.R.L. v. E.C. Comm’n, [1981] 3 C.M.L.R. 134.........................................................30 In re Asta Medica, S.A., 981 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992) .........21, 23 In re Boland, 79 F.R.D. 665 (D.D.C. 1978) .............................20 In re Gary Constr., Inc., 96 F.R.D. 432 (D. Colo. 1983) .....................................................................................20 In re Ishihara Chem. Co., 251 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................31 In re Lancaster Factoring Co., 90 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................31 In re Letter of Request from the Amtsgericht Ingol- stadt, F.R.G., 82 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1996)........................25 In re Letter of Request From Crown Prosecution Service of U.K., 870 F.2d 686 (D.C. Cir. 1989)................21 In re Letter Rogatory From the First Court of First Instance in Civil Matters, Caracas, Venez., 42 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1995)...........................................21, 25 In re Letters Rogatory Issued by Dir. of Inspection of Gov’t of India, 385 F.2d 1017 (2d Cir. 1967)................29 In re Lo Ka Chun, 858 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir. 1988).................21 In re Request for Assistance from Ministry of Le- gal Affairs of Trin. & Tobago, 848 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir. 1988)....................................................8, 21, 27, 31 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) In re Request for Int’l Judicial Assistance (Letter Rogatory) for Federative Republic of Braz., 936 F.2d 702 (2d Cir. 1991) ..........................................31, 33 In re Solorio, 192 F.R.D. 709 (D. Utah 2000) .........................20 Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2000), aff’d, 253 F.3d 695 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................14 Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957)..........................36 McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991)..................................36 Nevada v. O’Leary, 63 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 1995) .....................20 Radio Telefis Eireann v. E.C. Comm’n, [1991] E.C.R. II-485.......................................................................12 Tennison v. Henry, 203 F.R.D. 435 (N.D. Cal. 2001)............20 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) ..................................18, 35 STATUTES 15 U.S.C. § 6203(a) .....................................................................32 28 U.S.C. § 1696................................................................9, 17, 27 28 U.S.C. § 1782.................................................................passim 12 Stat. 769 (1863).........................................................................5 Act of June 25, 1948, Pub. L. No. 80-773, 62 Stat. 869...........................................................................................5 Pub. L. No. 81-72, 63 Stat. 89 (1949)..........................................5 Pub. L. No. 85-906, 72 Stat. 1743 (1958)....................................6 Pub. L. No. 88-619, 78 Stat. 995 (1964)......................................7 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 186 (1996) ................9 LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS S. Rep. No. 88-1580 (1964), reprinted in 1964 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3782......................................3, 7, 8, 22, 26, 27 Commission on International Rules of Judicial Pro- cedure, H. Doc. No. 88, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) ......................................................................................7 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) ARTICLES Cohen, Gene D., Comparing the Investigating Grand Jury with the French System of Crimi- nal Investigations: A Judge’s Perspective and Commentary, 13 Temp. Int’l & Comp. L.J. 87 (1999) ......................................................................................8 Stahr, Walter B., Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Foreign and International Proceedings, 30 Va. J. Int’l L. 597 (1990).......................................................5 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-572 INTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONER OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-9a) is reported at 292 F.3d 664. The opinion of the district court (Pet. App. 13a-15a) is unreported. JURISDICTION The court of appeals entered its decision on June 6, 2002. A timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied on September 3, 2002 (Pet. App. 11a). The peti- tion for a writ of certiorari was filed on October 11, 2002, and was granted on November 10, 2003. This Court has jurisdic- tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 2 STATUTE INVOLVED 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Assistance to foreign and interna- tional tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals (a) The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory