In Re Veiga

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding 14 that “the parties’ [ ] arguments concerning privilege [were] premature” and that “[the] [c]ourt simply [was] not in a position to resolve blanket claims of privilege and waiver”
• granting a Section 1782 application and finding that the parties’ blanket arguments about privilege were premature
• declining to order production of documents located outside the United States
• “[D]istrict courts need not determine that the evidence would actually, or even probably, be admissible in the foreign proceeding.”
• “[District courts need not determine that the evidence would actually,-or even probably, be-admissible in the foreign proceeding.”
• “Section 1782(a) does not incorporate an exhaustion requirement, and an applicant is not required to first seek discovery from the foreign tribunal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).