Section 1782 lets someone in a foreign case reach evidence in the United States. But the statute only helps if that evidence is "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal." In 2026, a high-profile fight over the superyacht Alfa Nero showed exactly how an application falls apart when the foreign "proceeding" is more aspiration than reality.
The backstory: an abandoned superyacht
The Alfa Nero is an 82-meter Oceanco superyacht once linked to Andrey Guryev, a Russian businessman sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. With the owner under sanctions, the vessel sat in Antigua and Barbuda — and after no one stepped forward to claim or maintain it, the government declared it abandoned in 2023 and moved to seize and sell it. In July 2024 the yacht was auctioned for roughly $40 million to a Turkish buyer, in a sale brokered by a U.S. yacht brokerage.
The § 1782 bid
Yulia Guryeva-Motlokhov, a Russian citizen and heir connected to the Guryev family, contested the seizure and sale. To build her case, she turned to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, seeking U.S. evidence "for use" in proceedings in Antigua and Russia concerning the yacht. In the Southern District of New York she subpoenaed the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and The Clearing House — institutions that would hold records of how the auction money moved — and a separate application in Florida targeted the broker.
What the courts held
The district court (S.D.N.Y., Judge Jesse Furman, 2025) quashed the subpoenas, and on March 30, 2026 the Second Circuit affirmed (In re Guryeva-Motlokhov, No. 25-1626-cv). The asserted "for use" was, in the court's words, too conclusory and speculative. The foreign proceedings she pointed to weren't shown to be pending or genuinely imminent — and discovery can't be justified by a plan that itself depends on first getting the discovery.
The Second Circuit restated the standard plainly: a § 1782 applicant must identify a foreign proceeding that is pending or "within reasonable contemplation," backed by "reliable indications" it will be brought within a reasonable time. A proceeding that might materialize only "upon some intervening event" doesn't qualify. The court also confirmed that a district court has the inherent authority to reconsider and vacate a § 1782 authorization it had earlier granted.
The lesson for anyone using § 1782
This is the trap to avoid. "For use" is not a box to check with a sentence about future litigation; it's a real requirement, and courts are enforcing it. To survive:
- Anchor the application to a concrete proceeding — one that's pending, or genuinely planned with evidence you can point to.
- Don't frame discovery as the thing that will decide whether you sue. "We need this to figure out if we have a case" is the losing posture.
- Use a foreign-counsel declaration describing the proceeding and how the evidence will actually be used in it.
- Show "reliable indications" — a filed action, a clear pre-litigation track, a regulatory matter underway — not just intent.
Have a real foreign matter that needs U.S. evidence?
The difference between a granted application and a quashed one is often the "for use" showing. Tell us about your proceeding and we'll give you a candid read before you file.
Request a consultation Who can apply for § 1782?Related: § 1782 case-law update (2023–2026) · Who can apply & the "for use" rule · Common § 1782 mistakes
This article provides general information about 28 U.S.C. § 1782 and a public court decision; it is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Get My Discovery and the Law Office of Derek J. Soltis were not involved in the matter described. Case facts are drawn from public records and reporting and may be subject to further proceedings. Section 1782 outcomes are fact-specific and vary by federal circuit. For advice, request a consultation. Get My Discovery is a d/b/a of the Law Office of Derek J. Soltis, attorney admitted in New York (Reg. #5175971).