Definitive Scope Requirement for Final § 1782 Discovery Orders

Introduction

In Amgen Inc. v. Celltrion USA Inc., the Third Circuit addressed a threshold jurisdictional question under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a): whether an order granting discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding is “final” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 appellate jurisdiction when the district court has approved the discovery in principle but has not yet definitively set its scope. The dispute arose in parallel patent-infringement actions filed by Amgen in South Korea and in the United States against Celltrion’s South Korean parent. Amgen sought to compel discovery from Celltrion USA, the New Jersey subsidiary, for materials “residing or found” in the forum under § 1782. After the magistrate judge granted the § 1782 application but deferred defining the precise scope of permissible discovery pending a meet-and-confer and confidentiality order, Celltrion USA appealed. The Third Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an order granting § 1782 discovery but leaving open the scope question is not a final decision under § 1291 and thus not immediately appealable.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals first confirmed that it has an independent duty to assess its own jurisdiction. It then reviewed § 1291’s “final decision” requirement and contrasted the treatment of ordinary discovery orders (typically interlocutory and non-appealable) with § 1782 orders (once fully resolved, appealable). The key holding: an order that approves § 1782 discovery in principle but postpones the conclusive determination of the precise scope of that discovery does not satisfy the finality criterion of § 1291. Because the district court order left outstanding issues (the meet-and-confer process and final protective order) and did not definitively bind Celltrion USA to specific discovery obligations, the Third Circuit found the appeal premature and dismissed it for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a): Authorizes U.S. district courts to order discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” if the target “resides or is found” in the district.
28 U.S.C. § 1291: Confers jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions” of district courts.
Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019): Finality requires that “nothing remains for the court to do but execute the judgment.”
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945): Defines finality as ending the litigation on the merits.
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949): Explains that where a matter remains “open, unfinished or inconclusive,” an appeal is premature.
Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999): Held that fully resolved § 1782 orders granting or denying discovery are “final” and immediately appealable.
In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954 (3d Cir. 1997): Typical discovery orders are interlocutory and not final.
Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009): Emphasizes policies underlying the final-judgment rule.
In re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2011): If the discovery dispute is conclusively resolved, there is “no further case or controversy.”
Banca Pueyo SA v. Lone Star Fund IX (US), L.P., 978 F.3d 968 (5th Cir. 2020): Dismissed an appeal where § 1782 discovery scope was yet to be defined.
CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 119 F.4th 1126 (9th Cir. 2024): Confirmed non-finality where the scope of § 1782 discovery remained unresolved.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court applied the general final-judgment test: an order is “final” if it “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Here, although the district court granted discovery under § 1782, it explicitly deferred key determinations—namely, the specific categories of documents and testimony that Celltrion USA must produce and the protective regime governing them. The Third Circuit reasoned that because parties were required to “meet and confer” and obtain a confidentiality order before any production obligation crystallized, substantial work remained in the district court. That ongoing procedural choreography meant the order was not “final” under § 1291; thus, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

The opinion also underscored the policy foundations of the finality requirement: avoiding piecemeal appeals, promoting efficient use of judicial resources, and respecting district courts’ principal role in managing discovery. Permitting interlocutory appeals of § 1782 orders with undetermined scope would invite repeated appellate filings each time the scope narrows or changes, in conflict with § 1291’s intent to limit appeals to true “final decisions.”

3. Impact

This decision establishes a clear rule for practitioners seeking § 1782 discovery: to obtain an immediately appealable decision, the district court must both grant the request and define the precise scope of the production obligations. A purely provisional or “in principle” § 1782 order is subject to later modification or clarification, and thus cannot be challenged in the court of appeals. Going forward, parties will need to press district courts for concrete rulings on the scope of discovery—such as specific document categories, date ranges, witness designations, and protective terms—before risking interlocutory appeal. Conversely, opponents of § 1782 applications can strategically insure against interlocutory review by successfully persuading the court to leave scope issues open.

Complex Concepts Simplified

28 U.S.C. § 1782: A federal statute allowing discovery in the United States to assist foreign or international legal proceedings.
“Final Decision” under § 1291: An order that conclusively resolves all claims or issues in a case, leaving nothing for the trial court to decide except ministerial tasks (e.g., enforcing the judgment).
Interlocutory Appeal: An appeal of a non-final order. Generally disfavored because it leads to multiple appeals and delays final resolution.
Meet-and-Confer: A pre-production process in which parties confer in good faith to narrow disputes over discovery scope and protective terms, often required by local rules or specific orders.
Protective Order: A court order setting confidentiality restrictions on sensitive documents produced in discovery.

Conclusion

Amgen Inc. v. Celltrion USA Inc. clarifies that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, a district court’s grant of discovery alone does not constitute a “final decision” for § 1291 appellate purposes when the precise scope of that discovery remains to be worked out. Courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to entertain appeals until the district court has issued a definitive order specifying the categories of documents or testimony to be produced and the protective regime that will govern them. This holding reinforces the final-judgment rule by preventing piecemeal interlocutory appeals and preserving district courts’ authority over discovery management. Practitioners must now ensure that scope determinations are concretely resolved at the trial level before seeking appellate review of § 1782 discovery rulings.