TERM, AUT.OR Ty; WALKER, ET AL. HARI=ES::FRiED "I:" -i. :.isoilcitorge eral :i, :i.:. -

Transcription

1 ' Nos and Sn toe u0reme Court of toe Nnteb tate. OCTOBER TERM, =::'-... s N... ANSCHUETZ & CO., GmbH., PETITIONER ':-:. >:;:,: MssssPP RIVER BRIDGE AUT.OR Ty; ET AL. O" )" )2:r. --:," ',(.=: MESSERSC:HMITTB6I KOWBLOHM, PETITIONER": - "... " :, 7: 7-. ambh.; -".. VIRGINIA WALKER, ET AL.!. :., ;( -. ;. :.:= "... ON PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CER TIORA RI TO. THE :.... UNITED.STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT :.."[.:. "." : )' BRIEFI.FOR THEUNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE ;21 :: " HARI=ES::FRED "I:" - W '- " :.solctorge eral :, :.:. -.<!,.. : RICHARD::K:..WlELARD;.:.., ,:.. -., fmknby:. QRnera),:, '",: ::.:':Assst nt A "-- " - JAIVES M. SPEARS,= :Deg ty:solctor ene,al. :,.. --!tor)ze "..:. <,:

2 .,. q QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether a federal dstrct court, adjudcatng a prvate cvl sut nvolvng a foregn natonal subject to the court's jursdcton, must employ the procedures set forth n the Hague Evdence Conventon to dscover evdence wthn the possesson or control of the foregn natonal but located abroad. 2. Whether, f the Hague Evdence Conventon s not the exclusve method for obtanng such evdence, prncples of n- ternatonal comty nevertheless requre the use of the Conven- ton n the present cases. (1)

3 !! TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement Page... 1 Dscusson... 6!: Concluson TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Bankers Lfe & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. Black v. Cutter 17 Laboratores, U.S Club Medterranee, S.A. v. Dorn, appeal dsmssed and cert. dened, No (Oct. 15, 1984)... Compagne Francase D'Assurance v. Phllps Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D , , 15, 17, 18 Cooper Industres, Inc. v. Brtsh Aerospace, Inc., {? 102 F.R.D O Gebr. Eckhoff Maschnenfabrk Und Esengebere mbh v. Starcher, 328 S.E.2d , Graco, Inc. v. Kremln, Inc., 101 F.R.D , Grffs v. A erospatale Helcopter Corp., Cv. No ? :?" ::':J : ::':'2"? 2:':: 2-":" :. -.,...,..,,... :, A (D. Alaska June 3, 1985), petton for mandamus pendng, No (9th Cr. fled Oct. 10, 1985) Hckman v. Taylor, 329 U.S Guyot,... Internatonal Socety for Krshna Conscousness, Inc. v. 105 F.R.D Laker Arways, Ltd. v. Pan Amercan World Ar ways, 103 F.R.D , 19 Laker Arways, Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgan Worm Arlnes, 731 F.2d , 14 Lasky v. Contnental Products Corp., 569 F. Supp Ljusne Kattng, A.B., In re, No (5th Cr. Dec. 11, 1985)... 15, 18! : : I! (Ill) 0

4 IV Cases - Contnued: Page Lowrance v. Weng, 107 F.R.D , 17 Murphy v. Refenhauser KG Maschnenfabrk, 101 F.R.D , 18 Pan v. Unted Technologes Corp., 637 F.2d 775, cert. dened, 454 U.S Perkns v. Benguet Consoldated Mnng Co., 342 U.S Phladelpha Gear Corp. v. Amercan Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D Perburg GmbH & Co. KG v. Superor Court, 137 Cal. App.3d 238, 186 Cal. Rptr ,... Schlagenhaufv. Holder, 379 U.S Slauenwhte v. Bekum Maschnenfabrken, GmbH, 104 F.R.D Socete Internatonale v. Rogers, 357 U.S Socete Natonale Industrelle Aerospatale, 782 F.2d Th. GoldschmdtA.G.v. Smth, 676 S.W.2d Unted States v. Frst Natonal Bank, 699 F.2d Unted States v. Frst Natonal Cty Bank, 396 F.2d Unted States v. Vetco, Inc., 691 F.2d 1281, cert. dened, 454 U.S Vncent v. Atelers de la Motobecane, S.A., 193 N.J. Super. 716, 475 A.2d Volkswagenwerk A.G. v. Falzon, appeal dsmssed, 465 U.S Wlson v. Lufthansa German Arlnes, 108 A.D.2d 393,489 N.Y.S.2d ,12, 14 Work v. Ber, 106 F.R.D , O : "3:. :..:: :-:--.::-: :.::. ::: :: :.:.'j_:':?:?::::.':'.::::?:: -::.:: :. :: 1 : : I " - :,:.::.::.-.-:..-. Treates, statutes and rules Hague Conventon on the Servce Abroad of Judcal and Extrajudcal Documents n Cvl or Commercal Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 et seq... art. 1, 20 U.S.T :::: ":':'.: ":.'.'::." :.'.:. :..:: :.':. : -::: : :. ::::. :.::.:..:.:.." ) : O, ::.; ::. ::::-::-::::: :.::.. : :-:: :..., :

5 3 V Treates, statutes and rules-contnued: Page Hague Conventon on the Takng of Evdence Abroad n Cvl or Commercal Matters, opened [- :- :... :. : for sgnature Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T et seq art. l, 23 U.S.T arts. 1-2, 23 U.S.T arts. 1-14, 23 U.S.T arts. 1-2, 23 U.S.T arts. 5-13, 23 U.S.T :.::...,. art. 9, 23 U.S.T arts. 9-12, 23 U.S.T l : -:.: arts , 23 U.S.T art. 17, 23 U.S.T art. 23, 23 U.S.T art. 33, 23 U.S.T art. 35, 23 U.S.T l U.S.C. 7456(b) U.S.C Fed. R. Cv. P. 28(b)... 7 I/! :!,::/!vl/:.:::!::!-: : - Mscellaneous: Edwards, Takng of Evdence Abroad n Cvl or Commercal Matters, 18 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 646 (1969)... 6, 7 Kaplan, von Mehren & Schaefer, Phases of German CvlProcedure (pts. 1 & 2), 71 Harv. L. Rev (1958) Langben, The German Advantage n Cvl Procedure, 52 U. Ch. L. Rev. 823 (1985)... 6 Oxman, The Choce Between Drect Dscovery and Other Means of Obtanng Evdence A broad: The lmpact of the Hague Evdence Conventon, 37 U. Mam L. Rev. 733 (1983)... 9, 11 Report of UntedStates Delegaton to Eleventh Ses- { son of Hague Conference on Prvate Interna- tonallaw, 8 Int' Legal Materals 785 (1969)... 6, 7, 9,.. O j f /:;/ ; /:{ :,: :: ( ::' L-:-t.C.... '.-:: * -- : : :...

6 VI Mscellaneous-Contnued: Restatement (Second) of Foregn Relatons Law of Page the Unted States (1965) S. Exec. A, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)... 6, 7, 9 S. Exec. Rep , 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972).6, 7, 9, 10 P. Schlosser, Der Justzkonflkt zwschen den USA und Europa (1985)... Shemansk, Obtanng Evdence n the Federal Republc of Germany: The Impact of the Hague Evdence Conventon on German-Amercan Judcal Cooperaton, 17 Int'l Law. 465 (1983)... 6 Smt, Internatonal Aspects of Federal Cvl Procedure, 61 Colum. L. Rev (1961) O) : : ::!::?: :: : : :: ::

7 2 :. Sn toe upreme Court of tt)e lnteb btate -.,, OCTOBER TERM, 1985 No ANSCHUETZ & Co., GmbH., PETITIONER L v. MISSISSIPPI RIVER BRIDGE AUTHORITY, ET AL.! No '.: :-;-:-.:... : ::::" MESSERSCHMITT BOLKOW BLOHM, GmbH., PETITIONER v. I VIRGINIA WALKER, ET AL.! "" "." ON : PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO " ; THE.. UNITED STA TES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT :": ' : :"... " I BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE -:.-:.. :. :.:.,,... :: Ths bref s submtted, n response to the Court's order n vtng the Solctor General to express the vews of the Unted!' States. STATEMENT Pettoners are corporatons based n the Federal Republc of Germany (Germany) that are presently defendng unrelated prvate tort suts n Unted States courts. They seek revew of the court of appeals' refusal to vacate separate federal court I dscovery orders, entered n accordance wth the Federal Rules I of Cvl Procedure, that requre producton n ths country of I documents and deponents located n Germany. Nether pet-! toner presently contests that t s subject to the jursdcton of ::-:::: :,: : :-.::.:.-. :: the Unted States,. ::: ::.-:-::.: :.:. :.:. : : : courts. Each.- :. [: -.-: : : : ::-:..:F,' contends, however, that the relevant " dscovery order s nvald. They mantan that the Hague '... d)!.. 0 :..::::::: " : :. :. " :..:.:::,:. : :..: : :::: ;: ::::.-. :v:::::: :..:.%::: :: ;.:7:.:--::-:.:::... -_... ".:':: : - t h l l :.. - :

8 Evdence Conventon provdes the exclusve avenue for prvate ltgants n Unted States courts to obtan dscovery of evdence presently located n Germany. In addton, they argue that even f the Hague Evdence Conventon s not the sole method for obtanng that evdence, prncples of nternatonal comty compel ts use n the present cases. In ther vew, a "letter of request" from the federal dstrct court to German judcal authortes, executed n conformance wth the Conventon's provsons, s the approprate method for obtanng evdence located abroad The pettoner n No , Anschuetz & Co., GmbH., s a thrd-party defendant n an admralty tort sut arsng from a 1979 collson n the Por of New Orleans. In that ncdent, a Spansh vessel, the M/V Pola de Lena, chartered by Gjonesa de Navegacon S.A. (Gjonesa), collded wth the Gretna Ferry Landng and two ferry boats owned by the Msssspp Rver Brdge Authorty. The Brdge Authorty and others sued Gjonesa for damages. Gjonesa fled a thrd-party complant aganst Anschuetz, whch manufactured the steerng devce on the Pola de Lena. The thrd-party complant alleged that falure of the steerng system caused the collson Pet. App. 3a. Gjonesa served Anschuetz wth extensve nterrogatores, re- quests for producton of documents, and notces of depostons to take place n Germany. Anschuetz moved for a protectve order on the ground that the dscovery request was overbroad. The magstrate dened the protectve order and drected Anschuetz to comply wth most of the dscovery demands (85-98 Pet. App. 4a-5a). In early Aprl 1984, some of the deponents-anschuetz employees subject to deposton pur- suant to Fed. R. Cv. P. 30(b)(6)-apparently were examned n Germany (see Pet. App. 5a, 35a, 40a). Soon thereafter, Anschuetz moved for a protectve order to prevent further depostons scheduled to take place n Germany on May 2, It asserted, apparently for the frst tme, that Hague Conventon on the Takng of Evdence Abroad n Cvl or Commercal Matters, opened for sgnature Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T et seq. (entered nto force between the Unted States and the Federal Republc of Germany on June 26, 1979) [herenafter cted as Hague Evdence Conventon]. 2 See Hague Evdence Conventon, arts. 1-14, 23 U.S.T (descrbng the procedures for utlzng a letter of request) :. q}

9 / 3 Jl the dscovery should be obtaned through the procedures of the Hague Evdence Conventon. The Magstrate dened that moton (85-98 Pet. App. 5a). Anschuetz appealed to the dstrct court, whch affrmed the magstrate's rulng (d. at 28a-38a). Anschuetz requested a wrt of mandamus from the court of appeals to prevent the takng of depostons and producton of documents n Germany. The court of appeals stayed the dstrct court dscovery proceedngs and requested the vews of Ger- 1 ;z!l/ {;? many and the Unted States concernng the applcablty of the Hague Evdence Conventon n the present case (85-98 Pet. App. 5a). Germany fled a bref amcus curae statng that the dstrct court's dscovery order, requrng the takng of depos- tons and the producton of documents n Germany, "would be a volaton of German soveregnty unless the order s trans- mtted and executed by the method of Letter of Request under the [Hague] Evdence Conventon." Germany Amcus Br. 8, In { re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, No (Sth Cr.). The Un'ted States fled a bref amcus curae statng that the Hague Evdence Conventon s not the exclusve means for obtanng evdence located n foregn countres. U.S. Amcus Br. 7, In re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, No (5th Cr.). The bref observed, however, that the conduct of depostons on,} ://<,<. :; German sol would be offensve to German soveregnty and could not be undertaken wthout resort to the Conventon (d. at 9-10). The Unted States' bref also stated that, gven Ger- many's soveregnty-based objectons to the producton of documents located n Germany, the dstrct court should be re- qured to reconsder ts order, applyng a careful comty analyss (d. at 7). The court of appeals ssued a lengthy opnon denyng the petton for a wrt of mandamus (85-98 Pet. App. la-27a). The court concluded that the Conventon does not provde the ex- clusve means for obtanng evdence located n member coun- tres (d. at 8a-lla, 24a). It ruled that a federal dstrct court possessed of approprate jursdcton retans the power to order dscovery from foregn natonals n accordance wth the Federal Rules of Cvl Procedure (d. at 23a). l.... /.

10 ".. 4 The court of appeals concluded, however, that "n the realm of nternatonal dscovery we beleve the exercse of judcal power should be tempered by a healthy respect for the prncples of comty" (85-98 Pet. App. 23a). It acknowledged Germany's objectons to the dscovery order, but nevertheless stated (d. at 26a): We hold that the Hague Conventon s to be employed wth the nvoluntary deposton of.a party conducted n a foregn country, and wth the producton of documents or other evdence gathered from persons or enttes n the foregn country who are not subject to the court's n personata jursdcton. The Hague Conventon has no applca- ton at all to the producton of evdence n ths country by a party subject to the jursdcton of a dstrct court pursuant to the Federal Rules. Although the court of appeals refused to ssue a wrt of man- damus, t drected the dstrct court to reconsder ts dscovery orders "n the lght of the prncples expressed n ths opnon" (d. at 27a). In partcular, the court of appeals observed that the dstrct court could "order the producton of documents and the examnaton of wtnesses to occur n the Unted States to avod any nfrngement upon German soveregnty" (bd.). 2. The pettoner n No , Messerschmtt Bolkow Blohm, GmbH., s a co-defendant n a wrongful death acton arsng from a 1982 helcopter crash near McKnney, Texas (85-99 Pet. App. la). In the course of dscovery, the plantffs requested that Messerschmtt produce documents located n Germany. Messerschmtt objected, mantanng that producton of those documents through means other than the Hague Evdence Conventon would volate Germany's soveregnty (85-99 Pet. App. 2a). The magstrate ordered producton of the evdence (d. at 13a-15a), concludng that resort to the Hague Evdence Conventon "would be a futle gesture" (d. at 14a). The dstrct court affrmed the magstrate's order (d. at 9a-12a). /)? ;." r. ' " ' "! : : ; z, / ::: ;... " " z! ;..-...,.... :.,

11 { ) I Messerschmtt then pettoned the court of appeals for a wrt of mandamus to vacate the dscovery order.3 That court, turn-,# ng to ts recent decson n Anschuetz for gudance, dened the petton (85-99 Pet. App. la-8a). It concluded that, under Anschuetz, "the Federal Rules of Cvl Procedure, not the Hague Conventon, normally govern the dscovery of documents from foregn partes subject to the jursdcton of a, Unted States court, even though those documents are physcal- ly located n the terrtory of a foregn sgnatory of the Hague Conventon" (/d. at 3a). The court of appeals observed, however, that Anschuetz requred a court to "consder whether, as a matter of nternatonal comty, the partes should be requred to proceed under the Hague Conventon before dscovery s compelled under the " - : : :.'.'j...: ;:1-'1 : ". :! : 1:: ; " : : ::1 : Federal Rules of Cvl Procedure" (85-99 Pet. App. 3a-4a, (footnote omtted)). Weghng "Germany's nterest n mantanng control over ts judcal system aganst the Amercan nterest n obtanng full pretral dscovery of nformaton relevant to pendng ltgaton n the Unted States" (/d. at 4a), the court concluded that the dscovery order was proper. It stated (/d. at 5a): The dstrct court's order does not requre any governmen- tal acton n Germany, any appearance n Germany of foregn attorneys, or any proceedngs n Germany. It requres only that a party admttedly subject to the personal jursdcton of a Unted States court produce documents n the Unted States. The order for producton of documents, therefore, appears to balance approprately the consderatons nvolved. "Fndng nothng n the dstrct court orders that transgresses Anschuetz" (d. at 8a), the court of appeals dened the mandamus petton. 3 Messerschmtt also sought revew of a dstrct court order permttng deposton of Messerschmtt's expert wtnesses (see Pet. App. 2a). Messerschmtt ndcates that that ssue has snce become moot (85-99 Pet. 4 n.4). 0 [. :, :

12 DISCUSSION These cases present recurrng questons concernng the use of the Hague Evdence Conventon to obtan foregn evdence for use n prvate suts. We agree wth pettoners that these ques- tons are mportant. However, we beleve that the court of ap- peals' decsons, whle contanng some troublesome language, are essentally correct. Furthermore, the decsons are n substantal conformty wth a growng body of law addressng applcaton of the Hague Evdence Conventon. Under these cr- cumstances, further revew by ths Court s unnecessary. 1. The Hague Evdence Conventon provdes methods for ltgants nvolved n cvl and commercal transnatonal dsputes to obtan evdence from abroad. It s ntended to help brdge the sgnfcant procedural obstacles encountered when ltgants seek evdence located n a foregn country havng a dfferent legal 4 system. The Conventon s based on the prncple that "[a]ny system of obtanng evdence or securng the performance of other judcal acts nternatonally must be 'tolerable' n the State of executon and must also be 'utlzable' n the forum of the State of orgn where the acton s pendng." S. Exec. A, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1972). See Report of Unted States Delega- ton to Eleventh Sesson of Hague Conference on Prvate Internatonal Law, 8 Int'l Legal Materals 785,806 (1969). The gatherng of evdence n a foregn country rases a number of problems. For example, the evdentary procedures of most cvl law countres, ncludng Germany, provde ltgants wth much less freedom n the collecton of evdence for use n foregn ltgaton than do those of the Unted States and other common law countres.5 In addton, countres that vew the takng of evdence as a judcal functon generally mantan 4 See S. Exec. A,'92d Cong., 2d Sess. VI (1972); S. Exec. Rep , 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1972); Report of Unted States Delegaton to Eleventh Ses- son of Hague Conference on Prvate Internatonal Law, 8 Int'l Legal Materals 785,806 (1969). 5 See, e.g., Langben, The German Advantage n Cvl Procedure, 52 U. Ch. L. Rev. 823 (1985); Shemansk, Obtanng Evdence n the Federal Republc of Germany: The Impact of the Hague Evdence Conventon on German-Amercan Judcal Cooperaton, 17 lnt'l Law. 465, (1983); Edwards, Takng of Evdence Abroad n Cvl or Commercal Matters, 18 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 646,647 (1969). See generally Kaplan, yon Mehren & Schaefer, Phases of German Cvl Procedure (pts. 1 & 2), 71 Harv. L. Rev. 1193, 1443 (1958).. :... )p :

13 reserve the rght not to allow the takng of evdence before a dplomat or con- that gatherng evdence wthn ther terrtory, wthout ther partcpaton or consent, threatens ther soveregnty.6 Moreover, evdence acqured under the procedures of a country where the evdence s located may be suppled n a form that s unusable where the acton s pendng. See S. Exec. A, supra, at VI; S. Exec. Rep , 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). The Conventon addresses these concerns by permttng "greater flexblty n the means avalable for obtanng evdence abroad" (d. at 4 (statement of Deputy Legal Advser Salans)). The Hague Evdence Conventon provdes three alternatve methods for conductng evdence-takng proceedngs abroad. Under the frst method, a ltgant may request the court where the acton s pendng to transmt a "Letter of Request" to the "Central Authorty" n the country where the evdence s located. See arts. 1-2, 23 U.S.T The Central Authorty, selected by the foregn government, then transmts the request to the approprate foregn court, whch conducts the evdentary proceedng. See arts. 5-13, 23 U.S.T Upon request, the foregn court wll conduct the evdentary proceedng under procedures specfed by the requestng court, unless those procedures are ncompatble wth nternal law or mpractcable. See art. 9, 23 U.S.T Under the second method, the ltgant may request that a dplomatc or consular offcer of the country where the acton s pendng take evdence n the foregn country to whch he s accredted. See arts , 23 U.S.T Under the thrd method, the ltgant may request that a specally apponted commssoner take evdence n the foregn country. Art. 17, 23 U.S.T The three methods are smlar to those dentfed by Fed. R. Cv. P. 28(b). The letter of request generally s the most useful of the three mechansms specfed by the Conventon. The other two methods apply only to noncompulsory evdentary proceedngs and are subject to other substantal lmtatons.7 Pettoners urge that dscovery n the present cases should be conducted pursuant to letters of request. 6 See Edwards, supra, 18 lnt'l & Comp. L. Q. at 618; Report of Unted States Delegaton to Eleventh Sesson of Hague Conference natonal Law, supra, 8 Int'l Legal Materals at 806. on Prvate Inter- 7 In partcular, a party to the Evdence Conventon s expressly permtted to 0

14 2. The Unted States adheres to ts prevously expressed vew that the Hague Evdence Conventon does not specfy the ex- clusve means for ltgants n Unted States courts to obtan dscovery of evdence located n a foregn country that s a party to the Conventon. See Bref for the Unted States as Amcus Curae at 6-9, Club Medterranee, S.A.v. Dorn, appeal ds- mssed and cert. dened, No (Oct. 15, 1984). An Amercan court has the power to demand the producton of evdence n the Unted States from foregn natonals who are subject to the court's personal jursdcton. Nevertheless, as we have also dscussed prevously (d. at 9-13), the exercse of that power s subject to prncples of nternatonal comty. Amercan courts should utlze the procedures establshed by the Hague Evdence Conventon n approprate cases to avod unnecessary nternatonal frcton resultng from Amercan procedures for pretral dscovery. a. Amercan courts may exercse jursdcton over a foregn party f the party's contacts wth the forum are suffcent "to make t reasonable and just" for the Amercan forum to ad- judcate the dspute. Perkns v. Benguet Consoldated Mnng Co., 342 U.S. 437,445 (1952). Amercan courts, of course, apply ther own procedural rules to adjudcate these clams. Pror to the formulaton of the Hague Evdence Conventon, there was no dspute that federal courts could apply the Federal Rules of Cvl Procedure to obtan dscovery from foregn ltgants of evdence located abroad. See Smt, Internatonal Aspects of Federal Cvl Procedure, 61 Colum. L. Rev. 1031, (1961). Furthermore, the courts recognzed that they had the power to compel dscovery of evdence located n a foregn country from partes subject to ther jursdcton. See, e.g., bd.; Unted States v. Frst Natonal Cty Bank, 396 F.2d 897, (2d Cr. 1968). 8 sular offcer, or before a commssoner. See arts. 33, 35, 23 U.S.T. 2571,2572. Germany has made such a reservaton. However, pursuant to an exchange of dplomatc notes between the Unted States and Germany, non-compulsory depostons may be conducted before Unted States consular offcals. See Bref for the Unted States as Amcus Curae at %9, Volkswagenwerk A.G.v. Falzon, appeal dsmssed, 465 U.S (1984). s Congress shared that understandng, even n the case of the Tax Court. For example, snce 1954, the Internal Revenue Code has expressly authorzed the Tax Court to order foregn corporatons that petton for

15 : I,I... f There s nothng n the language of the Hague Evdence Conventon dsplacng these prncples and requrng exclusve re-!:. course to the evdence gatherng procedures of the Conventon.....:. The Conventon does not state that t s the sole avenue for ob- tanng foregn evdence. Indeed, ts provsons, read n lght of smlar nternatonal agreements, mply otherwse. For example, the Conventon provdes that "[]n cvl or commercal matters a : lj::: :Z judcal authorty of a Contractng State may, n accordance wth the provsons of the law of that State, request the competent authorty of another Contractng State, by means of a Let- : :::::/h:::::::::: ter of Request, to obtan evdence, or to... perform some other,r: -:: judcal act" (art. 1, 23 U.S.T (emphass added)). Ths language stands n marked contrast to that of the Hague Servce, 9 Conventon, whch was concluded several years earler and provdes that "[t]he present Conventon shall apply n all cases, n cvl or commercal matters, where there s occason to trans-.-.. : mt a judcal or < extrajudcal document for ' : servce abroad" (art. 1, 20 U.S.T. 362 (emphass added)). :: An examnaton of the treaty hstory reveals no ntenton!.:..:,:: 0 :: :)::! among the negotators for the Unted States, the Department of State, or Congress to prohbt the accepted practce of conductng extraterrtoral dscovery pursuant to federal and state rules. O To the contrary, the Senate Report stated that the Con- venton, frst proposed by the Unted States, was ntended to mprove nternatonal judcal assstance by promotng letters of request as "a prncpal means of obtanng evdence abroad." :::::::.::::. ::.::::!:!!/)! refunds to produce documents, "wherever" located, that the Tax Court "may deem relevant to the proceedngs and whch are n the possesson, custody or control of the pettoner, or of any person drectly or ndrectly under hs control or havng control over hm or subject to the same common control." 26 U.S.C. 7456(b). 9 Hague Conventon on the Servce Abroad of Judcal and Extrajudcal Documents n Cvl or Commercal Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 et seq. (entered nto force for the Unted States on Feb. 10, 1969).,0 See S. Exec. A, supra; S. Exec. Rep , supra; Report of Unted -:..... : "::" ":. ] States Delegaton to.: Eleventh Sesson :':: ::: - of Hague Conference on Prvate Inter- ::.))?J)))):!:!:)):.). : -. natonal Law, supra, 8 Int'l Legal Materals at See also Oxman, The Choce Between Drect Dscovery and Other Means of Obtanng Evdence : - Abroad: The hnpact of the Hague Evdence Conventon, 37 U. Mam L. Rev. t 733, 760 (1983) ("The author knows of no evdence that the Amercan negotators, the Department of State, or the Congress ntended to prohbt ths practce entrely.").

16 10.;?... (:!!:;:/?!::: ( ::::,-:::::;!!;.. : See S. Exec. Rep , supra, at 1; see also d. at 3 (statement of Deputy Legal Advser Salans). The Senate Report also noted the statement by Phlp Amram, Unted States representatve and rapporteur at the Hague Conference, that the Conventon " 'makes no major changes n Unted States procedure and re- qures no major changes n Unted States legslaton or rules' (M. at 5 (ctaton omtted)). Moreover, the practcal consequences of treatng the Hague Evdence Conventon as exclusve render that nterpretaton m- plausble. The Conventon gves foregn judcal authortes substantal lattude n determnng what evdence shall be trans- mtted to a requestng court. See, e.g., arts. 9-12, 23 U.S.T ; see also Pan v. Unted Technologes Corp., 637 F.2d 775, (D.C. Cr. 1980), cert. dened, 454 U.S (1981). In partcular, member countres may elect to refuse let- ters of request "ssued for the purpose of obtanng pre-tral dscovery of documents" (art. 23, 23 U.S.T. 2568). Planly, f the Conventon provded the sole method for obtanng ev- dence from abroad, then foregn authortes could become the fnal arbters of dscovery dsputes n Amercan proceedngs. Amercan judges would lose supervsory control over dscovery n pendng cases and ltgants mght fnd t mpossble to obtan necessary dscovery abroad. 12 The Unted States, n proposng Pettoners suggest that "t s dffcult to see why countres such as Ger- many,agreed to compel ther ctzens to provde evdence to Unted States courts f t was not n exchange for some lmtatons on the methods or scope of Unted States dscovery from abroad." Pet. 16 (footnote omtted); Pet (footnote omtted). It s true that the Unted States had already provded foregn countres wth broad evdence gatherng opportuntes pror to the Conventon's entry nto force. See 28 U.S.C However, Germany has receved addtonal tangble benefts from the Con- venton despte ts non-exclusve operaton. Frst, the Conventon provdes an evdence gatherng procedure that Amercan courts may use n approprate cases to prevent nternatonal frcton. The avalablty of ths optonal method reduces the lkelhood that Unted States courts wll need to ssue dscovery re- quests that Germany mght fnd objectonable. In addton, Germany enjoys the benefts of partcpaton n a multlateral conventon that presumably enhances ts evdence gatherng opportuntes n countres other than the Unted States. 2 Pettoners suggest that Amercan courts can cure ths problem by "ex- cludng evdence when the opposng party cannot test ts probatve value through examnaton of underlyng and related evdence located abroad" or by "... " ,' ::.:.:-:-:.: :, ::.: 1:: ;: }:ZZ: 1:: : :1,:111 ':.. z.;':: : :.: :" : , ;. - :. : :-.. :./

17 () 11 and ratfyng the Conventon, certanly dd not ntend these results. 3 The Conventon cannot reasonably be construed as dsplacng the authorty of Unted States courts to employ tradtonal dscovery devces provded by federal and state court rules. b. Although the Hague Evdence Conventon s not exclusve, t nevertheless remans a valuable and workable mechansm for obtanng evdence abroad. Amercan courts should gve serous consderaton to ts use when they encounter foregn govern- ment objectons to use of Amercan dscovery procedures. Fur- thermore, courts should refran, when feasble, from orderng a party to perform acts that would volate the laws or clearly artculated polces of a foregn government. See, e.g., Compagne Francase D'Assurance v. Phllps Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, (S.D.N.Y. 1984). The Conventon provdes a mechansm that, n approprate cases, can reduce such conflcts. : Prncples of nternatonal comty should gude a court's determnaton whether the Hague Evdence Conventon should... :? : : A be employed n any partcular stuaton. Ths Court has de- scrbed the concept of comty as follows: "Comty," n the legal sense, s nether a matter of absolute oblgaton, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good wll, upon the other. But t s the recognton whch one naton allows wthn ts terrtory to the legslatve, executve or judcal acts of another naton, havng due regard both to nternatonal duty and convenence, and to the rghts of ts own ctzens or of other persons who are under the protecton of ts laws. "drawng adverse nferences from a party's falure to produce voluntarly evdence located abroad" (85-98 Pet. 17; Pet. 15). However, these remedes are of lttle help to a plantff who needs evdence from abroad to develop and establsh hs case n chef. 3 See Oxman, supra, 37 U. Mam L. Rev. at 760 ("Absent an express pro- ::.:: ] vson n the treaty that a longstandng practce valued by at least some ::: :::::: :::] " members of the Amercan bar was beng abolshed * * * t s unreasonable to conclude that the conventon mples such a prohbton."). ;

18 12 Hlton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, (1895). 4 The comty nqury depends on the crcumstances of each n- dvdual case. However, the Restatement (Second) of Foregn Relatons Law of the Unted States 40 (1965), sets forth some of the relevant consderatons. A court should examne the com- petng nterests of the Unted States and the foregn country, the hardshps mposed by the dscovery request, what actvtes are requred n the terrtory of the foregn country, the natonalty of the partes, and the extent to whch enforcement of the dscovery request can be expected to produce the requested evdence. See, e.g., Compagne Francase D'Assurance v. Phllps Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. at The court should also examne whether the Conventon wll provde effectve ds- covery, consderng such factors as the lkelhood that the evdence can be obtaned through Conventon mechansms and the expense, delay and other burdens that mght result from ther use. In our opnon, the comty nqury must reman flexble. The Conventon has been ratfed by numerous countres 5 and may be appled n a broad range of cvl and commercal dsputes. The courts therefore must have adequate dscreton to consder the wde varety of factors that mght be relevant n any par- tcular nstance. 3. Pettoners contend that the court of appeals erred n refus- ng to requre applcaton of the Hague Evdence Conventon n the present cases, argung that the Conventon was meant to be exclusve and that the requested producton of documents and deponents n the Unted States volates Germany's soveregnty (85-98 Pet ; Pet ). We beleve that the court of t4 See, e.g., Laker Arways, Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgan World Arlnes, 731 F.2d 909, 937 (D.C. Cr. 1984); Unted States v. Frst Natonal Bank, 699 F.2d 341, (7th Cr. 1983); Unted States v. Vetco, Inc., 691 F.2d 1281, (9th Cr.), cert. dened, 454 U.S (1981); Unted States v. Frst Natonal Cty Bank, 396 F.2d at Cf. Socete lnternatonale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958). t5 The Conventon s operatve n Barbados, Cyprus, Czechoslovaka, Den- mark, Fnland, France, Federal Republc of Germany, Israel, Italy, Luxem- bourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sngapore, Sweden, and the Unted Kngdom.

19 0 13 appeals' resoluton of the dscovery dsputes s essentally cor- rect and requres no further revew. We have already addressed the frst queston-whether the Hague Evdence Conventon s exclusve-n our general dscusson of the Conventon (pages 8-11, supra). In our vew, there s no serous dspute that the Hague Evdence Conventon provdes a non-exclusve mechansm for obtanng evdence from member countres. Unted States courts are vrtually unanmous n concludng that the Conventon s not exclusve. 6 0 As dscussed above, that concluson s supported by the language of the Conventon, the events surroundng ts formulaton, and Amercan judcal practces. The resoluton of the ssue n the present cases does not conflct wth any decson of ths Court, another court of appeals, or a state court of last resort. Accordngly, there s no need for further revew of that queston. The second queston-whether prncples of comty requre recourse to the Hague Evdence Conventon n the present cases-s more dffcult. In our vew, the court of appeals was ultmately correct n holdng that the dstrct court, n both n- stances, could utlze the Federal Rules of Cvl Procedure to requre producton of documents and party deponents n ths country. The court of appeals acknowledged that ts analyss "should be tempered by a healthy respect for the prncples of comty" (85-98 Pet. App. 23a; see Pet. App. 3a-4a). We beleve that whle the court's comty dscusson was rather cur- sory, ts decsons reveal adequate grounds n these cases for choosng to conduct dscovery through the tradtonal methods 6 See, e.g., Lowrance v. Weng, 107 F.R.D. "386, (W.D. Tenn. 1985); Work v. Ber, 106 F.R.D. 45, (D.D.C. 1985); Slauenwhte v. Bekum Maschnenfabrken, GmbH, 104 F.R.D. 616, (D. Mass. 1985); Compagne Francase D'Assurance v. Phllps Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Laker Arways, Ltd. v. Pan Amercan World Arways, 103 F.R.D. 42, (D.D.C. 1984); Cooper Industres, Inc. v. Brtsh Aerospace, Inc., 102 F.R.D. 918, (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Graco, Inc. v. Kremln, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 503, (N.D ); Perburg GmbH & Co. KG v. Superor Court, 137 Cal. App. 3d 238, , 186 Cal. Rptr. 876, (1982); Gebr. Eckhoff Maschnenfabrk Und Esengebere mbh v. Starcher, 328 S.E.2d 492,497 (W. Va. 1985). Pettoners cte no reported dec- sons urgng a contrary concluson. See Pet & n.29; Pet & n.28.

20 14. prescrbed by the Federal Rules of Cvl Procedure rather than resortng to the Hague Evdence Conventon. The court's dec- sons are consstent wth the emergng case law addressng ap- plcaton of the Hague Evdence Conventon. Further revew of these decsons therefore appears unnecessary. Pettoners contend that nternatonal comty requres that Unted States courts frst resort to the Hague Evdence Conven- ton before pursung alternatve methods, avalable under the Federal Rules of Cvl Procedure, to secure evdence located n Germany. They submt that ths "frst-use" requrement s necessary because German soveregnty s volated f "nforma- ton held n the foregn soveregn's terrtory by natonals of that soveregn s subject to dsclosure by orders framed accordng to the dctates of an alen jursprudence" (85-98 Pet. 19; Pet ). Germany agrees (Amcus Br. 6-7), statng that "[o]nly ts courts are empowered to compel persons under ther jursdcton to comply wth orders of a foregn court requrng the gatherng of evdence n the Federal Republc of Germany and ts removal to the Unted States" (d. at 7). We depart at the outset from the broad proposton that prn- cples of nternatonal comty oblgate Amercan courts to seek frst use of the Hague Evdence Conventon n every nstance where ltgants seek dscovery abroad. Instead, the demands of ntermatonal comty requre only that Amercan courts gve respectful consderaton to clams of foregn "judcal soveregnty" n lght of the precse nature of the foregn nterests and the crcumstances of the partcular case. See Hlton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. at "Snce comty vares accordng to the factual crcumstances surroundng each clam for ts recognton, the absolute boundares of the dutes t mposes are nherently uncertan." Laker Arways, Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgan World Arlnes, 731 F.2d 909, 937 (D.C. Cr. 1984) (footnote omtted). "Mechancal or overbroad rules of thumb are of lttle value; what s requred s a careful balancng of the nterests nvolved and a precse understandng of the facts and crcumstances of the partcular case." Unted States v. Frst Natonal Cty Bank, 396 F.2d at 901. Germany's soveregnty nterest n these cases appears relatvely lmted. Unlke the stuaton n Volkswagenwerk A.G.v. Falzon, appeal dsmssed, 465 U.S (1984), these cases do

21 r 15 not nvolve dscovery on Germany terrtory. The orders wll not requre "any governmental acton n Germany, any appearance n Germany of foregn attorneys, or any proceedngs n Ger- many" (85-99 Pet. App. 5a). 17 Thus, the challenged dscovery wll not encroach upon Germany's exclusve authorty to con- duct judcal actvtes wthn ts borders. Furthermore, the dscovery orders apparently do not volate any specfc "content-based" restrctons upon foregn dsclosure of nformaton. For example, pettoners have not clamed that the dscovery orders requre dvulgence of nformaton that Ger- many treats as confdental under ts nternal laws. Thus, the dscovery n these cases s fundamentally dfferent from producton of busness secrets or confdental communcatons that receve substantve protecton from dsclosure. Addtonally, pettoners do not rely upon a so-called "block- ng statute" prohbtng dsclosure of nformaton to foregn trbunals. Compare Club Medterranee, S.A. v. Dorn, appeal dsmssed and cert. dened, No (Oct. 15, 1984). Whle 0 prncples of comty do not requre Amercan courts to gve con- clusve weght to a foregn statute that smply expresses hostlty to Amercan dscovery procedures, (see Compagne Francase D'Assurance v. Phllps Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. at 30), an Amercan court mght gve some consderaton to the exstence of such a statute as a measure of the foregn naton's depth of resolve concernng ts "judcal soveregnty."18 7 The court of appeals, senstve to German terrtoral soveregnty,,. / specfcally observed that the Conventon should be employed n the case of an "nvoluntary deposton of a party conducted n a foregn country" (85-98 Pet. App. 26a; see Pet. App. 7a). See In re Ljusne Kattng, A.B., No (5th Cr. Dec. 11, 1985) (holdng that the plantffs must use the Hague Evdence Conventon n the frst nstance when seekng on-ste nspectons and depostons on foregn sol). SGermany's asserton of judcal soveregnty, advanced through dplomatc notes and partcpaton n ths ltgaton, s, of course, enttled to smlar consderaton. We note, however, that the record n these cases does /,': j not reveal the precse nature of Germany's "judcal soveregnty." That concept perhaps reflects Germany's general nterest n protectng the personal prvacy of ts ctzens. But f that s the case, the German nterest should receve dmnshed deference from foregn trbunals n stuatons where the German ctzen has, n effect, waved that protecton by takng actons that /,

22 16 Germany's clam of judcal soveregnty must be weghed aganst the Unted States' substantal nterest n affordng ltgants n ts courts adequate opportuntes to dscover the pertnent facts surroundng ther clams. The Unted States' nterest fnds explct expresson n the dscovery provsons of the Federal Rules of Cvl Procedure. Those provsons are central to the conduct of federal judcal proceedngs. The "pre-tral deposton-dscovery mechansm establshed by Rules 26 to 37 s one of the most sgnfcant nnovatons of the Federal Rules of Cvl Procedures." Hckman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 500 (1947). It provdes the preferred method for partes to narrow the basc ssues and ascertan the exstence of facts germane to those ssues, ensurng that "cvl trals n the federal courts no longer need be carred on n the dark." Id. at 501. Pettoners do not presently dspute the scope or relevance of 19 the evdence sought. Nor do they clam that there are practcal or logstcal obstacles to producng the evdence n the Unted States. Thus, there seems to be no serous doubt that com- plance wth the dscovery orders wll advance the ultmate resoluton of the law suts. On the other hand, pettoners acknowledge that dscovery conducted pursuant to the Conven- ton procedures "may be somewhat more tme-consumng or cumbersome than a drect dscovery order to the foregn party" (85-98 Pet. 20; Pet ). Of partcular mportance, the dstrct judge n,4nschuetz and the magstrate n Messerschmtt both concluded that resort to the Conventon to obtan pretral dscovery of relevant documents would prove futle n lght of Germany's express refusal to execute letters of request, for that purpose (85-98 Pet. App. 32a; Pet. App. 14a). subject hm to the foregn court's jursdcton. Furthermore, t s not clear whether German courts would declne to order producton of evdence located n a foregn country. One German commentator has suggested that "European courts make a smlar clam, although ths clam s hdden behnd a dfferent confguraton of the relevant legal nsttutons and norms." P. Schlosser, Der Justzkonflkt zwschen den USA und Europa 44 (1985) (Englsh Summary). See also/d, at The magstrate rejected Anschuetz's challenge to the breadth of the dscovery order. See Pet. App. 4a-5a. We express no opnon whether that rulng s correct under Amercan dscovery standards. Messerschmtt dd not challenge the scope or relevance of the dscovery sought. See Pet. App. 1 la.

23 ] 17 Gven these crcumstances, we thnk that the court of appeals could properly refuse to grant mandamus relef excusng pettoners from producton of documents and deponents n the Unted States. As pettoners acknowledge, the mandamus remedy s "by ts very nature extraordnary" (85-98 Pet. 13; Pet. 12). The wrt ordnarly ssues only when "there s 'usurpaton of judcal power' or a clear abuse of dscreton." Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 110 (1964) (quotng Bankers Lfe & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953)). Germany's clams of judcal soveregnty do not provde a suffcently compellng bass n these partcular cases to justfy ssuance of a prerogatve wrt. 2 In our opnon, those clams also lack suffcent force to justfy ths Court's revew, z'. 2o Other courts have refused to follow the Hague Evdence Conventon under smlar crcumstances. See, e.g., Lowrance v. Weng, 107 F.R.D. 386 O (W.D. Tenn. 1985); Work v. Ber, 106 F.R.D. 45 (D.D.C. 1985); Internatonal Socety for Krshna Conscousness, lnc. v. Lee, 105 F.R.D. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Compagne Francase D'Assurance v. Phllps Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Murphy v. Refenhauser KG Maschnenfabrk, 101 F.R.D. 360 (D. Vt. 1984); Graco, Inc. v. Kremln, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 503 (N.D. I );. Lasky v. Contnental Products Corp., 569 F. Supp (E.D. Pa. 1983); Wlson v. Lufthansa German Arlnes, 108 A.D.2d 393,489 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1985). 2 In Anschuetz, the court of appeals stated (85-98 Pet. App. 26a) that "[t]he Hague Conventon has no applcaton at all to the producton of evdence n ths country by a party subject to the jursdcton of a dstrct court pursuant to the Federal Rules." Ths statement, vewed n solaton, s pla!nly overbroad. We vew t, n context, as smply a poorly-phrased observaton that the Conventon s not exclusve. Indeed, the court of appeals quckly added that f "dscovery * * * of Anschuetz n Germany becomes partcularly n- * trusve *, then the [dstrct] court may order the partes to conduct that dscovery under the Hague Conventon" (bd.). And the court of appeals n Messerschmtt undertook a bref comty analyss even though the dscovery order under revew was lmted to producton of evdence wthn the Unted States (85-99 Pet. App. 3a-5a). Some courts, n nterpretng A nschuetz, have placed undue weght on the Anschuetz dctum. See In re Socete Natonale ln- dustrelle Aerospatale, 782 F.2d 120, 124 (8th Cr. 1986); Lowrance v. Weng, 107 F.R.D. 386, 389 (W.D. Tenn. 1985). We do not understand that dctum as dsplacng the need for a dscrmnatng comty analyss even n those nstances where dscovery from partes s to occur n the Unted States. See Work v. Ber, 106 F.R.D. 45, (D.D.C. 1985); Grffs v. Aerospatale Helcopter Corp., Cv. No. A (D. Alaska June 3, 1985), slp op. 8-12, petton for mandamus pendng, No (9th Cr. fled Oct. 10, 1985). In all events, ths Court "revews judgments, not statements n opnons." Black v. Cutter Laboratores, 351 U.S. 292, 297 (1956). 0

24 Q 18 Pettoners observe that applcaton of comty prncples to the use of the Hague Evdence Conventon has prompted con- sderable ltgaton and has resulted, at tmes, n seemngly n- consstent results (85-98 Pet. 7-13; Pet. 6-12). They sug- gest that revew by ths Court s necessary to secure a unform rule concernng the Conventon's applcaton. We dsagree. The decsons below-"the frst tme a crcut court has consdered the nte-play between the Hague Conven- ton and the Federal Rules" (85-98 Pet. App. 6a)--are bascally consstent wth the better reasoned and more prevalent trend n the case law, whch recognzes that resort to the Hague Evdence Conventon depends on the partcular crcumstances n each n- dvdual case. z2 They provde appellate affrmaton that the Hague Conventon s not the exclusve mechansm for obtanng evdence abroad and that a comty analyss s necessary to deter- mne ts precse applcaton, z3 The decsons, though somewhat cursory n ther comty analyses, should tend to clarfy these controllng general prncples of nternatonal dscovery. We ex- pect that other courts wll dscern and apply these prncples and, as a result, dspel any confuson n the preexstng dstrct court decsons. Furthermore, the Unted States s clearly on record, through ths submsson, as to how the Conventon should be appled. That, too, should mnmze confuson among the lower courts n the future. We therefore beleve that there s no need for ths Court to ntervene at ths tme. Pettoners also contend that the decsons below, by refusng to requre frst resort to the Hague Evdence Conventon, con- flct wth a recent decson of the Supreme Court of West Vr- 2z See, e.g.,internatonal Socety for Krshna Conscousness, Inc. v. Lee, 105 F.R.D. 435, (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Compagne Francase D'Assurance v. Phllps Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Murphy v. Refenhauser KG Maschnenfabrk, 101 F.R.D. 360, (D. Vt. 1984). 23 In Anschuetz, the court of appeals "left ths comty analyss to the dstrct court on remand" (85-99 Pet. App. 4a; see Pet. App. 27a), whle n Messerschmtt, the court tself conducted a bref comty analyss (85-99 Pet. App. 4a-5a). These decsons thus recognze that a comty analyss s necessary. The Ffth Crcut recently reaffrmed the mportance of comty consderatons n In re Ljusne Kattng, A.B., No (5th Cr. Dec. 11, 1985), holdng that the Hague Evdence Conventon must be used n the frst nstance when seekng on-ste nspectons on foregn sol and depostons of foregn natonals outsde the control of the foregn defendant.

25 25 We note, n partcular, that the purported conflct presents a com- O 19 gna, Gebr. Eckhoff Maschnenfabrk Und Esengebere mbh v. Starcher, 328 S.E.2d 492, 506 (1985). It appears, however, that the dfferences between the West Vrgna Supreme Court and the Ffth Crcut are relatvely modest and do not create a meanngful conflct requrng ths Court's revew. The supposed conflct seems to stem largely from dfferent assessments of the Conventon's effectveness n securng needed dscovery, Court s not well postured to address that essentally factual dspute. Moreover, Starcher was decded just two weeks after Anschuetz and nearly one month before Messerschmtt. Thus, the West Vrgna court dd not have the beneft of the Ffth Cr- cut's vews. In these crcumstances, the state court decson does not create a conflct of partcularly pressng z4 Ths consequence The tral court n Starcher ruled that West Vrgna dscovery procedures must be followed despte the exstence of the Conventon, apparently gvng no consderaton to the comparatve effectveness of the Conventon's alter- natve procedures. See 328 S.E.2d at 495. In reversng, the West Vrgna O Supreme Court ndcated that "the prncple of nternatonal comty dctates frst resort to [Conventon] procedures untl t appears that such attempt has proven frutless and that further acton s necessary to prevent an mpasse." 328 S.E.2d at 506. By contrast, the dstrct judge n Anschuetz and the magstrate n Messerschmtt had both determned, pror to appellate revew, that use of the Conventon would not provde fully adequate dscovery (see Pet. App. 32; Pet. App. 14a). The court of appeals planly consdered ths factor mportant (see Pet. App. 15a-16a; Pet. App. 3a-5a). Thus, the dvergent results among the cases may smply reflect dfferent perceptons of the Conventon's effectveness. Other decsons from lower courts that have requred frst resort to the Conventon procedures can also be reconcled on ths bass. See Laker Arways, Ltd. v. Pan Amercan Worm Arways, 103 F.R.D. 42, 51 (D.D.C. 1984); Phladelpha Gear Corp. v. Amercan Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D. 58, 60 n.3 (E.D. Pa. 1983); Perburg GmbH & Co. KG v. Superor Court, 137 Cal. App. 3d 238, 244, 186 Cal. Rptr. 876, 880 (1982); Vncent v. Atelers de la Motobecane, S.A., 193 N.J. Super , 475 A.2d 686, (1984); Th. Goldschmdt A.G.v. Smth, 676 S.W.2d 443,445 (Tex. Ct. App. 1984). paratvely mnor dfference n the accommodaton of foregn clams of judcal soveregnty, s purely procedural, and does not subject smlarly stuated ltgants to dfferent standards of lablty. The West Vrgna ltgant, lke pettoners, remans oblgated to produce the requested dscovery; he s smply permtted to attempt producton, n the frst nstance, through the Conventon procedures. See 328 S.E.2d at 506. It would appear that future West Vrgna

26 O 20 In sum, we suggest that the decsons below are bascally cor- rect and wll provde adequate gudance for future cases rasng smlar ssues. Further revew s unlkely to be productve. Ap- plcaton of the Hague Evdence Conventon nevtably turns on the facts of each case; t depends on ntractable factors such as the dentty of the partes, the nature of the dspute, the type of dscovery sought, the countres nvolved, and ther ablty and wllngness to provde effectve mplementaton of the Conven- ton. Accordngly, t would be dffcult for ths Court to provde addtonal specfc gudance to the lower courts. Those courts, whch have frst-hand exposure to the Conventon, can address future questons on a case-by-case bass n lght of the needs of the partcular ltgants and the potental utlty of the Conven- ton under the crcumstances. Ths Court should ntervene, of course, f truly aberrant decsons result. At present, however, we do not perceve a need for ths Court to act. CONCLUSION The pettons for a wrt of certorar should be dened. Respectfully submtted. O ABRAHAM D. SOFAER Legal Advser Department of State CHARLES FRIED Solctor General RICHARD K. WILLARD Assstant Attorney General KENNETH S. GELLER Deputy Solctor General JAMES M. SPEARS Deputy Assstant Attorney General JEFFREY P. MINEAR Assstant to the Solctor General MARCH 1986 ltgants seekng foregn dscovery can resst frst recourse to the Conventon by establshng to the court's satsfacton that use of the Conventon wll prove frutless. Lkewse, we expect that future Ffth Crcut ltgants seekng foregn dscovery may be requred to resort to the Conventon f the foregn party can demonstrate that use of the Conventon wll provde effectve and effcent dscovery.. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986.,