Certain Funds, Accounts And/Or Investment Vehicles v. KPMG, L.L.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that applicants “must present to the district court some concrete basis from which it can determine that the contemplated proceeding is more than just a twinkle in counsel’s eye”
• concluding that non-parties to a foreign litigation are not entitled to discovery 11 under section 1782 where they cannot establish “they are in a position to use the evidence they seek” in those proceedings
• noting that the Intel opinion lacks guidance regarding \minimum requirements or tests to be met\
• holding demonstration of “for use” deficient insofar as applicant lacked procedural ability to submit evidence to the foreign tribunal
• explaining that the “the applicant must have more than a subjective intent to undertake some legal action, and instead must provide some objective indicium that the action is being contemplated”
• finding that, based on the record before the district court, the petitioners alleged they had retained counsel and considered “the possibility of initiating litigation,” and thus the prospective litigation was not within “reasonably contemplation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).