October Term 2003 · Docket 02-572
Can U.S. courts order discovery for foreign regulatory bodies?
Intel and AMD dispute whether federal judges can compel evidence for foreign antitrust regulators.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Phillips argued the court of first instance lacks authority to order discovery.
Mr. Lynch argued emasculating section 1782 is not the proper way to respect comity concerns.
Mr. Minear agreed an interested party needs a pending proceeding.
Mr. Waxman argued section 1782 authorizes discovery for foreign or international tribunals.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 12-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 12-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 2-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 2-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-40 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 42-54
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Intel and AMD dispute the scope of federal discovery powers. The case tests if U.S. courts can compel evidence for foreign regulatory bodies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 12-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 12-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 2-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 2-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-40 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-40
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 20, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 42-54
What each side wants
Intel wants the Supreme Court to limit federal discovery powers for foreign regulators.
AMD wants the Supreme Court to preserve broad federal discovery powers for foreign proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 12-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 12-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 2-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 2-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-40 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-40
What each side says
Intel argues federal courts lack authority to order discovery for foreign regulatory bodies.
AMD argues federal courts must preserve broad discovery powers despite foreign comity concerns.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 12-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 12-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 2-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 2-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-40 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-40
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if an interested party needs a pending proceeding.
Justice Kennedy asked if the court of first instance has authority to order discovery.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 42-54
Why it matters
This case defines the reach of U.S. discovery laws. It determines if federal courts can compel evidence for foreign regulators. The outcome shapes international legal cooperation and corporate compliance burdens.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 12-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 12-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 2-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 2-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-40 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-40
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 42-54
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 12-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 12-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 2-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 2-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-40 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 12-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 12-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 2-14 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 2-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 29-40 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 29-40
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.