The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court order compelling major law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP to provide limited discovery to SBK Art LLC for use in foreign litigation proceedings. The decision, issued Feb. 20, represents a victory for the art company in its efforts to obtain documents and testimony for European civil cases.
In the case styled *In Re: Ex Parte Application of SBK Art LLC* (2d Cir. 2026), the appeals court upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York. Judge Engelmayer had granted SBK's petition for discovery under 28 U.S.C. §1782, a federal statute that allows parties to obtain evidence in the United States for use in foreign legal proceedings.
SBK Art LLC had sought documents and deposition testimony from Akin Gump for use in pending civil proceedings and anticipated litigation in Europe. However, the district court granted only a limited subset of the discovery that SBK had originally requested in its petition.
Akin Gump appealed the district court's order, arguing that Judge Engelmayer abused his discretion in granting any discovery at all. The law firm's primary contention centered on the discoverability of the requested materials in the foreign jurisdictions where litigation is pending or contemplated.
The firm relied heavily on the Second Circuit's 2018 decision in *Kiobel by Samkalden v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP*, 895 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2018). In that case, the court established precedent regarding when district courts should exercise their discretion under Section 1782 to compel discovery from law firms for foreign proceedings.
Akin Gump argued that the documents sought by SBK would not be discoverable from the firm's client in any of the foreign jurisdictions where litigation is pending or contemplated. This argument goes to the heart of Section 1782 jurisprudence, which generally requires courts to consider whether the requested discovery would be available in the foreign forum.
Section 1782 grants district courts broad discretion to order discovery for use in foreign proceedings, but courts must balance several factors. These include whether the discovery is needed for the foreign proceeding, whether the requesting party could obtain the information through other means, and whether granting discovery would be unduly burdensome.
The statute has become increasingly important in international litigation as businesses and individuals seek to leverage the broad discovery rules available in U.S. courts to support cases abroad. Foreign litigants often turn to Section 1782 because discovery in the United States is generally more expansive than what is available in many other jurisdictions.
The case highlights the challenges law firms face when they become targets of Section 1782 discovery applications. Legal ethics rules generally protect attorney-client communications and work product, but these protections can be tested when foreign litigation is involved.
The Second Circuit's decision to affirm the district court's order suggests that Judge Engelmayer properly balanced the competing interests at stake. The appeals court found that Akin Gump's arguments were insufficient to overcome the district court's exercise of discretion in favor of limited discovery.
The limited nature of the discovery order indicates that Judge Engelmayer was mindful of the law firm's concerns while still providing SBK with some assistance for its European litigation. This balanced approach reflects the careful consideration district courts must give to Section 1782 applications involving law firms.
The case was argued before the Second Circuit on Dec. 4, 2025, and decided on Feb. 20, 2026. The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Robinson and Merriam, along with District Judge Stein sitting by designation.
For SBK Art LLC, the victory provides access to potentially valuable evidence that could support its position in the European proceedings. The company's ability to obtain discovery from a major U.S. law firm may strengthen its litigation posture abroad.
The ruling also provides guidance for other parties seeking Section 1782 discovery from law firms. While such applications face heightened scrutiny due to attorney-client privilege and work product concerns, the decision shows that limited discovery can still be obtained when properly justified.
The case underscores the continuing importance of Section 1782 in international litigation and the ongoing tension between broad U.S. discovery rules and the more limited discovery available in many foreign jurisdictions. As international business litigation continues to grow, such cross-border discovery disputes are likely to remain a significant area of legal practice.
Neither party has indicated whether they plan to seek Supreme Court review of the Second Circuit's decision. The case number is 25-1563-cv, and the underlying district court proceeding was styled as No. 1:24MC00147.