Esses, 101 F.3d 873, 875 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam)). 36 . Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264, 124 S.Ct. 2466, 159 L.Ed.2d 355 (2004); In re Rio Lempa v. Nejapa Power Co., LLC, No. 08-135-GMS, 2008 WL 4809035, at *1 (D.Del. Oct. 14, 2008) ("[T]he Supreme Court’s decision in Intel (and post -Intel decisions from other district courts) indicate that Section 1782 does indeed apply to private foreign arbitrations.”). 46 . Chevron Mem. at 18. 47 . Intel, 542 U.S. at 264, 124 S.Ct. 2466. 48 . Id. 49 . Maazel Decl. Ex. 13; Pl. Mem. at 15. 50 . Respondents neither contend that granting the applications would undermine the Arbitration nor suggest that the arbitral tribunal would oppose the discovery sought here. 51 . See Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 265, 124 S.Ct. 2466 (<HOLDING>). 52 . See, e.g., Mastro Decl. Ex. O-Q (court
holding that a remand should be limited to cases in which further action must be taken by the district court or in which the appellate court has no way open to it to affirm or reverse the district courts action under review holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts recognizing district court application of the same rule holding that  1782 application could be granted though the european commission has stated in amicus curiae briefs to this court that it does not need or want the district courts assistance