IsraelLawThe first question most US and UK lawyers ask when they enter Israeli arbitration is: when does disclosure open? The honest answer is that it does not work that way. Israeli procedure — in court and in arbitration — starts from the civil-law tradition of targeted, document-by-document requests rather than the common-law tradition of broad pre-hearing disclosure that captures everything potentially relevant.
For a foreign company disputing with an Israeli partner over unpaid invoices, hidden defects, or a collapsed technology deal, understanding how to obtain key documents is often as important as understanding the substantive law. Get the evidence rules wrong and you may go into your hearing without the emails, financial records, or technical specifications that prove your case. This guide explains the applicable legal framework, the practical tools available to you, and the traps that routinely catch foreign parties by surprise.
1. Two Legal Frameworks: Which One Applies to Your Arbitration?
The first thing to establish is which statute governs your proceedings, because the document production tools differ between them.
The Arbitration Law 5728-1968 governs most domestic Israeli arbitrations — contracts between Israeli parties, real estate disputes, construction matters, employment cases, and any international arbitration where the parties have not selected the ICA Law as their governing procedure. It is a short statute (40 sections) that gives arbitrators broad authority to conduct proceedings as they see fit, including authority to order document production under Section 13.
The International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024 (commonly called the ICA Law) came into force on 12 February 2024. It is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and applies when the dispute is commercial in nature and at least one party has its place of business outside Israel, or when the parties have expressly opted into it. The ICA Law replaces ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration in Israel and gives tribunals and courts significantly stronger tools for evidence gathering than the 1968 Law does.
To determine which law applies, check three things: (a) whether the arbitration clause specifies a governing law or rules; (b) whether both parties are Israeli; and (c) whether the parties have chosen an institution whose rules incorporate the ICA Law. ICCA — the Israel Centre for Commercial Arbitration — updated its rules in 2024 to align with the ICA Law, so ICCA proceedings on international disputes will generally fall under the ICA Law framework.
2. Requesting Documents From the Other Party
Neither the Arbitration Law 1968 nor the ICA Law 2024 mandates automatic document exchange. There is no Israeli equivalent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, and no Disclosure Practice Direction 51U as in England and Wales. Each side produces its own documents and requests the other side's.
How the request process works. The standard method is to submit a written document request identifying, as specifically as possible, the documents or categories of documents you need. The request must explain why those documents are relevant to a claim or defence already in dispute. Israeli arbitrators consistently reject fishing expeditions — requests framed as "all correspondence relating to the project" will usually be narrowed or refused unless the requesting party can explain why each category matters to a specific issue in the case.
Timing. The best moment to raise document production is at the first procedural hearing (the preliminary hearing or Procedural Order No. 1 session), which typically takes place within four to eight weeks of the arbitration being constituted. Agreeing a production calendar at that stage — with submission dates, objection periods, and response deadlines — prevents endless argument later. Requests made mid-hearing, when documents have already closed, face a much higher bar.
The tribunal's power. Section 13 of the Arbitration Law 1968 gives an arbitrator the same procedural powers as a District Court judge, including the authority to order a party to produce documents. Under Article 17 of the ICA Law 2024, the tribunal can issue interim measures that include document preservation and production orders. A production order issued by the tribunal is binding on the parties — but note that it binds only parties, not third parties.
3. Getting Evidence From Third Parties
Obtaining documents held by someone who is not a party to the arbitration — a bank, a subcontractor, a public authority — is one of the most common challenges in Israeli arbitration. The tribunal has no direct power over non-parties, so you must go through the courts.
Domestic arbitration (Arbitration Law 1968). Section 16 of the Arbitration Law allows the arbitrator to issue a summons requiring a third party to attend as a witness or produce documents. However, that summons is only enforceable if a competent court — the Magistrate's Court or District Court, depending on the matter's value — issues a parallel order confirming it. In practice, the arbitrator issues the request and the applicant party then files a separate court application, attaching the arbitration summons, asking the court to confirm and enforce it. This two-step process takes four to eight weeks.
International arbitration (ICA Law 2024). Article 27(4) of the ICA Law gives the tribunal an explicit right to request the District Court's assistance in obtaining evidence — including documents, testimony, and physical inspection. The court application goes to the Tel Aviv District Court or the district court closest to where the evidence is held. The court can order production directly without requiring the tribunal to issue a separate summons first. This is a notable improvement over the 1968 Law for cross-border cases.
What counts as a third party. Israeli banks are frequently targeted because commercial disputes often centre on payment records and account activity. Under Section 9B of the Bank of Israel Regulations, banks may disclose account information when ordered by a court. The Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA) and the Israel Land Registry (Tabu) will produce records in response to a properly issued court order. The Israel Tax Authority records require a court order and are rarely accessible unless the party's own records are being sought.
4. The IBA Rules on Evidence and the Redfern Schedule
The single most effective way to bring order to document production in Israeli arbitration is to agree at the outset to apply the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (the IBA Rules). These rules — published by the International Bar Association and widely used in ICCA and ICC proceedings involving Israeli parties — create a structured framework for document requests that both civil-law and common-law parties understand.
The Redfern Schedule. Named after the late Alan Redfern, the Redfern Schedule is a four-column table in which: (1) the requesting party identifies each document or category; (2) the requesting party explains its relevance; (3) the responding party sets out its objection; and (4) the tribunal rules on each request. ICCA's 2024 Procedural Guidelines recommend using this format for all document production disputes, and Israeli arbitrators who handle international work are familiar with it. Using a Redfern Schedule compresses what could be weeks of correspondence into a single procedural submission.
Article 3 of the IBA Rules is the key provision on document production. It requires each party to produce documents it relies on and allows requests for documents that are: (a) relevant and material to the outcome of the case; (b) described with reasonable specificity; (c) not in the possession of the requesting party; and (d) not subject to privilege or confidentiality protections that override the request. The IBA Rules also give the tribunal explicit authority to draw adverse inferences from non-production — this is spelled out in Article 9(5) and is stronger than the equivalent provision in the Arbitration Law 1968, which is implied rather than express.
Agreeing to the IBA Rules. Either include a reference in the arbitration clause itself ("document production shall be governed by the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence 2020") or agree at the first procedural session. Once agreed, the rules apply throughout and the tribunal is bound to follow the Redfern Schedule process. ICCA's standard Procedural Order No. 1 template includes an optional IBA Rules adoption clause.
5. What Happens When a Party Refuses to Produce
This is the question foreign parties ask most urgently: what can you actually do if the other side simply refuses to hand over documents the tribunal has ordered them to produce?
Adverse inference. The most immediate tool is asking the tribunal to draw an adverse inference under the principle established in Israeli civil procedure — and codified in Article 9(5) of the IBA Rules where those rules apply. The tribunal is entitled to infer that the withheld documents would have supported the requesting party's case. In practice, this means the tribunal may assume a fact against the non-producing party without direct evidence. Experienced Israeli arbitrators take this seriously, particularly when the non-producing party has given no credible explanation for its refusal.
Referral to the District Court. Under Section 15 of the Arbitration Law 1968 and Article 17H of the ICA Law 2024, a party can apply to the District Court to enforce a tribunal's procedural order as if it were a court order. This requires filing an application (not a full claim) at the District Court, attaching the arbitration order and evidence of non-compliance. The court process takes three to six weeks. Once the court endorses the production order, violation becomes contempt of court — carrying fines and, in serious cases, detention under Section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance [New Version] 5729-1969.
Setting aside risk. A party that strategically destroys or conceals documents to prevent their production in arbitration faces a risk of having any award made in its favour set aside under Section 24(7) of the Arbitration Law 1968 — which allows challenge where the arbitration "was conducted in a way that harmed the rights of a party." Deliberate evidence suppression has been held to fall within this ground by Israeli courts. Under the ICA Law 2024, the equivalent grounds appear in Article 34(2)(a)(ii).
6. A Practical Guide for Foreign Parties
If you are a non-Israeli company entering Israeli arbitration, or advising one, here is what the evidence phase actually requires from you.
Before you file: agree the evidence rules in your contract. The time to negotiate document production rules is before the dispute arises. If your contract with an Israeli party has an arbitration clause, add a sentence specifying that the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence 2020 will apply. Also consider whether to name ICCA as the institution — its 2024 procedural guidelines have a clearer document production framework than ad hoc arbitration under the Arbitration Law 1968.
The moment a dispute arises: preserve documents immediately. Send the Israeli counterparty a document preservation notice by email (with delivery receipt) and by registered post within the first week of a dispute emerging. State specifically which categories of documents must not be deleted, overwritten, or destroyed. This serves two purposes: it creates a record, and it sets up an adverse inference argument if documents subsequently disappear.
At Procedural Order No. 1: lock in the production schedule. Israeli arbitrators typically issue Procedural Order No. 1 (which sets the procedural timetable) within three to six weeks of tribunal constitution. At this stage, push hard for a defined document production phase with a Redfern Schedule format, a clear deadline for production (typically 30 to 45 days before statement of claim), and an agreed format for electronic documents. If no format is agreed, Israeli parties sometimes produce PDFs of scanned paper — functional but not searchable, and expensive to review.
Electronic documents. There are no specific e-discovery rules in Israeli arbitration. The IBA Rules Article 3(12)(b) covers electronic documents but only if the IBA Rules are adopted. In practice, parties should agree in Procedural Order No. 1 on whether native files (with metadata) will be produced or whether PDF is sufficient. For disputes involving software code, financial modelling, or encrypted communications, the format question is often decisive.
Privilege. The Israeli equivalent of attorney-client privilege is found in Section 90 of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version] 5731-1971 and its judicial elaboration. Israeli law protects communications between a licensed Israeli attorney and their client from disclosure. However, the privilege is narrower than US work-product doctrine: it does not automatically protect documents prepared by in-house counsel or foreign lawyers. Documents created by a US in-house attorney may not be privileged in Israeli arbitration unless they fall within the specific terms of Section 90.
Expect conservatism. Israeli arbitrators — even those who practice in international arbitration regularly — tend to be more restrictive on document production than their Common Law counterparts. Category requests that a US arbitrator would allow routinely ("all emails between the parties on project X") are often refused or narrowed. Frame each request as a specific, identified document or very tight category, and pair it with an explicit explanation of how it bears on a disputed issue. This approach succeeds far more consistently than broad requests.