⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The D.C. Circuit considers whether a remote-work company can be required to provide evidence for litigation in Guatemala. BAPA Holdings wants documents and testimony from NeWay Capital for a contract lawsuit there. NeWay is not a party to that foreign lawsuit. BAPA is using Title twenty-eight, section seventeen eighty-two, which lets a federal court order evidence from someone who resides or is found in its district for use before a foreign or international tribunal. This American proceeding is about obtaining evidence, not deciding who wins the Guatemalan contract case. A district judge authorized a subpoena in May 2025 and later refused NeWay's request to set aside that authorization. The first subpoena had a service defect, and the judge anticipated further disputes about the scope of discovery. Before reaching NeWay's challenge, the panel asks whether the district court has finished enough of its work to make an appeal available. You will hear this called finality. A separate question is personal jurisdiction: the court's power to bind a particular person or company. BAPA points to NeWay's own official filings and website identifying Washington as its headquarters. NeWay says its staff work remotely and its D.C. address is only a mail-forwarding office. Nicholas Dranias will argue for NeWay that the company is not at home in D.C. and that the discovery authorization should be set aside.

Application for Judicial Assistance (No. 25-7206) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 14, 2026.