In re Arbitration in London, England Between Norfolk Southern Corp. et al. & Ace Bermuda Ltd
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49827 (2009)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Norfolk Southern Corporation (plaintiff) entered contracts with ACE Bermuda (ACE) (defendant). The contracts contained arbitration clauses stating that the arbitration would occur in London, England, and that the parties would waive any rights to appeal the decision of the arbitral tribunal in the courts. A dispute arose between the parties concerning insurance coverage for losses related to a railway derailment in South Carolina. The parties began arbitration in London pursuant to arbitration provisions in a reinsurance policy issued by ACE for Norfolk Southern. Norfolk Southern filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to require Scott Carey, former counsel to ACE, to appear for a deposition so Norfolk Southern could use his testimony in an ongoing arbitration in London. Mr. Carey represented certain insurance and reinsurance companies, including ACE, and Norfolk Southern argued Mr. Carey had personal knowledge of facts relevant to the parties’ dispute. Carey filed a specific opposition to the motion, arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not authorize the court to grant the relief sought by Norfolk Southern as the statute does not pertain to private arbitrations. Carey argued that the court can only compel depositions as part of evidence-gatherings before “governmental entities, such as administrative or investigative courts, acting as state instrumentalities or with the authority of the state.”
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bucklo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.