Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB DEUTSCHE INDUSTRIEBANK AG

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that § 1782 discovery was warranted where there was appeal imminent in Germany, and where there were some circumstances under which the appellate court could hear new evidence
• explaining that courts “should not consider the admissibility of evidence in the foreign proceeding”
• “extend[ing] [Intel ] to the admissibility of evidence in [a] foreign proceeding” between two private parties
• finding that “a district court should not consider the discoverability of the evidence in the foreign proceeding, [and] it should not consider the admissibility of evidence in the foreign proceeding in ruling on a section 1782 application”
• “[A] district court should not consider the discoverability of the evidence in the foreign proceeding . . . [or] the admissibility of evidence in the foreign proceeding in ruling on a section 1782 application.” (emphasis removed)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).