The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,482 US 522 (1987) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which it ruled on the extent to which federal courts must apply the Hague Convention when parties file interrogatories, requests for admissions, production requests on foreign parties over which the courts have jurisdiction. The court rejected the idea that the Convention should be the exclusive vehicle for cross border discovery, and denied the petitioners' argument that the Convention's procedures have to be the first resort whenever discovery is requested from a foreign party. Furthermore the Court ruled that the Convention did not preclude the jurisdiction that the Court would otherwise have to obtain the production of evidence located in another country.
The Supreme Court's decision noted production can be obtained in violation of foreign blocking statutes designed to prevent the transfer of commercially valuable information. The court endorsed a test listed in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law to analyze whether or not international discovery can be conducted in violation of a foreign blocking statute:
"(1) the importance to the . . . litigation of the documents or other information requested;
"(2) the degree of specificity of the request;
"(3) whether the information originated in the United States;
"(4) the availability of alternative means of securing the information; and
"(5) the extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests of the United States, or compliance with the request would undermine important interests of the state where the information is located."