In re Roz Trading Ltd.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
469 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (2006)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Roz Trading, Ltd. (plaintiff), the Coca-Cola Export Company (CCEC), and the government of Uzbekistan (Uzbekistan) entered into a joint-venture contract. Pursuant to an arbitration agreement connected to the joint-venture contract, Roz Trading initiated arbitration proceedings against CCEC and other parties at the International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber in Vienna (the Centre), alleging breach of contract. Roz Trading claimed that CCEC assisted Uzbekistan in forcing Roz Trading out of the joint-venture agreement and taking over its interest. Roz Trading then filed an action in federal district court in the northern district of Georgia, where the parent company of CCEC, the Coca-Cola Company (defendant), was located. The action was an application for the court to exercise its discretion under § 1782 to direct Coca-Cola to produce certain documents for Roz Trading to use in the arbitration proceedings before a panel of arbitrators at the Centre. Coca-Cola opposed the application. Coca-Cola did not dispute that it was headquartered in the northern district of Georgia or that it was an interested party to the arbitration proceedings at the Centre. However, Coca-Cola argued that arbitration panels convened by the Centre were not a tribunal within the meaning of § 1782, because the Centre was a private entity that conducted voluntary proceedings. Coca-Cola acknowledged that Centre decisions were final rulings on the merits and that Centre orders were reviewable in Austrian courts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Duffey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.