§ 1782(a) and therefore empowers federal districts courts to compel the production by persons subject to their jurisdiction of documents and testimony for such tribunals.

The case was decided together with AlixPartners LLP v The Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States which concerned an investor-state arbitration.

The Court concluded thus (at page 16): "In sum, only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” under §1782.

The Court (at page 15) left open the possibility that some investor-state arbitrations might qualify as foreign tribunals, on a case by case basis, holding as follows: "None of this forecloses the possibility that sovereigns might imbue an ad hoc arbitration panel with official authority.

The relevant question is whether the nations intended that the ad hoc panel exercise governmental authority.

Following ZF, in In re Alpene 2022 WL 15497008 (Oct. 27, 2022), the Eastern District of New York held that section 1782 discovery was not available in relation to an investor-State arbitration conducted under the auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

The Court found that there was “insufficient support” for the argument that Malta and China (the two relevant States) had “intended to imbue the ICSID arbitration panel with government authority".

The Southern District of New York reached the same conclusion as to an ICSID arbitral panel in In Re: Application of Webuild S.p.A. and Sacyr S.A. 2022 WL 17807321 (Dec. 19, 2022).