On August 17, 2015, in Helga M. Glock v. Glock, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not preclude the use of evidence procured under it in US civil litigation (No. 14-15701, (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2015)).

Gaston Glock, creator of the Glock 17 handgun, and his wife Helga initiated divorce proceedings in Austria in 2011. In connection with the divorce case, Helga filed a miscellaneous proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which creates a procedure by which a person may obtain evidence in the US for use in a foreign or international proceeding. Under Section 1782, Helga sought to obtain evidence from Glock, Inc. and other related business entities (Glock entities) in the US for use in the Austrian divorce proceedings. Instead of challenging the request, the Glock entities entered into a protective order that limited use of certain acquired material to proceedings to which Helga was a party.

In 2014, Helga filed a separate Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit in the US against the Glock entities. Helga returned to the Section 1782 court to seek authorization to disclose the documents that she obtained during the 2011 divorce proceedings in the RICO action.

A magistrate judge granted Helga’s request, finding that the protective order did not limit Helga’s use of the documents, but instead permitted the court to authorize their use in a proceeding without reference to the foreign or domestic nature of the proceeding. The Glock entities objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 72(a), arguing that Section 1782 prohibits use of documents obtained for use in a foreign proceeding in US litigation. The district court agreed, further holding that the protective order entered into by Helga and the Glock entities must be construed to prohibit use of the material since it was entered into in the context of a Section 1782 action. Helga appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that Section 1782 does not preclude, as a matter of law, the use of evidence procured under it in subsequent US civil litigation. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the protective order entered by the Section 1782 court did not prohibit the use of the protected material.

The court found that restricting evidence obtained under Section 1782 was not supported by statutory text, legislative history or conventional discovery practice. The court further noted that judicial policy favors just, speedy, and inexpensive determinations of proceedings. Allowing use of lawfully obtained documents, regardless of whether they could have been obtained in the case in which a party seeks to use them, furthers these goals. Documents lawfully obtained under Section 1782 must be treated with the same standard favoring judicial efficiency when they are sought to be used in US litigation. Finally, any attempted abuse of this ruling could be brought to the court’s attention or the subject of a protective order.

The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court that Helga and the Glock entities’ protective order did not expressly preclude Helga from using the Section1782 evidence in US civil litigation. Based on this ruling, the court held that it could not construe the protective order to restrict use of the material.