In Re: Orthogen Int�l GmbH

── In Re: Orthogen Int�l GmbH ── Case No.: 25-1253 (L) Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General 25-1253 (L) In Re: Orthogen Int’l GmbH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: DENNY CHIN, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ IN RE: ORTHOGEN INTERNATIONAL GMBH, for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in a foreign proceeding, Petitioner. Nos. 25-1253 (Lead) 25-1258 (Con) _____________________________________________________________________ ORTHOGEN INTERNATIONAL GMBH, for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in a foreign proceeding, Appellee, v. DR. DOUGLAS SCHOTTENSTEIN, SCHOTTENSTEIN PAIN & NEURO, PLLC, d.b.a. NY SPINE MEDICINE, Intervenors-Appellants. _____________________________________ For Intervenors-Appellants: EDWARD D. ALTABET, Brach Eichler LLC, New York, NY. For Petitioner-Appellee: CHRISTOPHER B. HARWOOD (Matthew Garry, on the brief), Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC, New York, NY. Appeal from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Vernon S. Broderick, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the February 28, 2025 and April 30, 2025 orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. Dr. Douglas Schottenstein and his clinic, Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC (together, “Schottenstein” or “Appellants”), appeal from two orders of the district court authorizing Orthogen International GmbH to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in connection with contemplated, but not yet commenced, litigation against Schottenstein in Germany. J. App’x at 1–2. Appellants argue that (i) the German litigation is still too inchoate to justify discovery in the United States, (ii) the German courts would reject any evidence obtained under section 1782, 2 (iii) the parties’ forum selection clause bars Orthogen’s petition for domestic discovery, (iv) applying section 1782 here would violate the Constitution, (v) the district court incorrectly dismissed their counterclaim, and (vi) the district court should have sua sponte offered to let them amend their counterclaim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. In deciding whether to grant a motion for discovery pursuant to section 1782, a district court must first assess the three statutory requirements, namely, whether “(1) the person from whom discovery is sought resides (or is found) in the dist