1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court Opens Third Party's Files To Aid Private International Arbitration

Court Opens Third Party's Files To Aid Private International Arbitration

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.04.07

Crowell & Moring won a precedent setting victory on December 19, when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held in In re Roz Trading Ltd., No. 1:06-cv-02305-WSD, that a private arbitral panel qualified as a "tribunal" under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 thus permitting Roz to obtain documents from Coca-Cola in an international arbitration pending before the Vienna International Arbitral Centre against Uzbekistan and others. The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's rationale in Intel Corp v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S. 241 (2004) to reject application of two prior Court of Appeals (2nd and 5th Circuits) decisions that had held Section 1782 did not apply to private arbitration, thus opening the door for government contractors who find themselves in arbitrated disputes with their foreign government customers and in need of discovery from entities located in the United States.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights