If you need documents or testimony located in the United States for a case abroad, you generally have three options. Most foreign litigants are surprised to learn how different they are in practice — and how much faster and broader § 1782 usually is.
The three routes in brief
1. 28 U.S.C. § 1782. A direct application by an interested person to a U.S. federal court, asking it to order a person or company found in its district to produce evidence. It is unilateral — you don't need the foreign court to make the request for you.
2. Letters rogatory. A formal, diplomatic request from the foreign court to the U.S. court for assistance. Historically the default method, it is slow and steeped in protocol — and the receiving court is under no obligation to act.
3. The Hague Evidence Convention. A treaty framework for taking evidence across borders between member states. More formal and broadly recognized, but also more constrained and slower than § 1782.
Side by side
| § 1782 | Letters Rogatory | Hague Convention | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who initiates | You (an interested person) apply directly | The foreign court issues the request | Foreign court / designated authority |
| Typical speed | Often weeks if uncontested | Frequently 6–12 months | Slow; varies by country |
| Breadth of discovery | Broad — full U.S.-style discovery | Narrow; at the receiving court's discretion | More limited; subject to reservations |
| Need foreign court to ask first? | No | Yes | Generally yes |
| Available before suit is filed? | Sometimes (reasonable contemplation) | No | No |
| Your control over scope | High — you draft the subpoena | Low | Low to moderate |
Why § 1782 usually wins on speed and breadth
Two structural advantages stand out. First, § 1782 is direct: there's no need to first persuade the foreign tribunal to issue a request, and sometimes discovery can be sought even before the foreign lawsuit is formally commenced. Second, it taps the full breadth of U.S.-style discovery, which is far wider than what most foreign systems — or a discretionary letter rogatory — will produce. By contrast, letters rogatory can take six months to a year, and the receiving court is not obligated to grant them.
When a treaty channel still makes sense
§ 1782 is not always the answer. The Hague Evidence Convention may be the better fit when the evidence is relatively uncontested and you want a method that is formally recognized by the other country, or when a foreign court prefers or requires the treaty route. Some foreign tribunals are more comfortable with evidence gathered through channels they recognize. The right choice depends on your jurisdiction, the stakes, and how the foreign court is likely to view the evidence — which is worth talking through before you commit.
Not sure which route fits your case?
Tell us about your foreign proceeding and the evidence you need. We'll help you choose — and pursue § 1782 if it's the right tool.
Request a consultation Read the full guideRelated reading: The Complete Guide to § 1782 · How to file, step by step · Evidence from U.S. banks & tech companies
This article provides general information comparing 28 U.S.C. § 1782, letters rogatory, and the Hague Evidence Convention. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The best method depends on the facts, the jurisdictions involved, and the foreign court's preferences. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For advice, request a consultation.