of Microsoft Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d 188, 192 (S.D.N.Y.2006). 37 . Schmitz, 376 F.3d at 83-84. 38 . Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65, 124 S.Ct. 2466; Microsoft Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d at 192-93. 39 . Schmitz, 376 F.3d at 84 (quoting In re Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 77, 79 (2d Cir.1997)). 40 . 165 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir.1999). 41 . Id. 42 . Mastro Decl. Ex. S. 43 . 542 U.S. 241, 124 S.Ct. 2466, 159 L.Ed.2d 355 (2004). 44 . Id. at 258, 124 S.Ct. 2466 (quoting Hans Smit, International Litigation under the United States Code, 65 Colum. L.Rev. 1015, 1026-27 (1965)) (emphasis added). 45 . See, e.g., Ukmafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp., No. 3:09 MC 265(JBA), 2009 WL 2877156, at *4 (D. Conn. Aug. 27, 2009); In re Oxus Gold PLC, No. MISC 06-82-GEB, 2007 WL 1037387, at *5 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica
holding that a bilateral investment treaty governed by uncitral rules constituted a foreign tribunal under  1782 recognizing privilege under federal rules recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law