482 U.S.

522
107 S.Ct. 2542
96 L.Ed.2d 461

SOCIETE NATIONALE INDUSTRIELLE AEROSPATIALE

and Societe de Construction d'Avions de Tourisme, Petitioners
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF IOWA, etc.
No. 85-1695.
Argued Jan. 14, 1987.
Decided June 15, 1987.

Syllabus
The United States, France, and 15 other countries have acceded to the
Hague Evidence Convention, which prescribes procedures by which a
judicial authority in one contracting state may request evidence located in
another. Plaintiffs brought suits (later consolidated) in Federal District
Court for personal injuries resulting from the crash of an aircraft built and
sold by petitioners, two corporations owned by France. Petitioners
answered the complaints without questioning the court's jurisdiction, and
engaged in initial discovery without objection. However, when plaintiffs
served subsequent discovery requests under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, petitioners filed a motion for a protective order, alleging that
the Convention dictated the exclusive procedures that must be followed
since petitioners are French and the discovery sought could only be had in
France. A Magistrate denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals denied
petitioners' mandamus petition, holding, inter alia, that when a district
court has jurisdiction over a foreign litigant, the Convention does not
apply even though the information sought may be physically located
within the territory of a foreign signatory to the Convention.
Held:
1. The Convention does not provide exclusive or mandatory procedures
for obtaining documents and information located in a foreign signatory's
territory. The Convention's plain language, as well as the history of its

proposal and ratification by the United States, unambiguously supports

the conclusion that it was intended to establish optional procedures for
obtaining evidence abroad. Its preamble speaks in nonmandatory terms,
specifying its purpose to "facilitate" discovery and to "improve mutual
judicial co-operation." Similarly, its text uses permissive language, and
does not expressly modify the law of contracting states or require them to
use the specified procedures or change their own procedures. The
Convention does not deprive the District Court of its jurisdiction to order,
under the Federal Rules, a foreign national party to produce evidence
physically located within a signatory nation. Pp. 529-540.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Convention "does not
apply" to discovery sought from a foreign litigant that is subject to an
American court's jurisdiction. Although they are not mandatory, the
Convention's procedures are available whenever they will facilitate the
gathering of evidence, and "apply" in the sense that they are one method
of seeking evidence that a court may elect to employ. Pp. 540541.
3. International comity does not require in all instances that American
litigants first resort to Convention procedures before initiating discovery
under the Federal Rules. In many situations, Convention procedures
would be unduly time consuming and expensive, and less likely to
produce needed evidence than direct use of the Federal Rules. The
concept of comity requires in this context a more particularized analysis of
the respective interests of the foreign and requesting nations than a
blanket "first resort" rule would generate. Thus, the determination whether
to resort to the Convention requires prior scrutiny in each case of the
particular facts, sovereign interests, and likelihood that such resort will
prove effective. Pp. 541-546.
782 F.2d 120 (CA8 1986), vacated and remanded.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST,
C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which
BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 547.
John W. Ford, for petitioners.
Jeffrey P. Minear, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Richard H. Doyle, IV, Des Moines, Iowa, for respondent.
Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States, the Republic of France, and 15 other Nations have acceded
to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or
Commercial Matters, opened for signature, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555,
T.I.A.S. No. 7444.1 This Conventionsometimes referred to as the "Hague
Convention" or the "Evidence Convention"prescribes certain procedures by
which a judicial authority in one contracting state may request evidence located
in another contracting state. The question presented in this case concerns the
extent to which a federal district court must employ the procedures set forth in
the Convention when litigants seek answers to interrogatories, the production
of documents, and admissions from a French adversary over whom the court
has personal jurisdiction.

* The two petitioners are corporations owned by the Republic of France. 2 They
are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, and marketing
aircraft. One of their planes, the "Rallye," was allegedly advertised in American
aviation publications as "the World's safest and most economical STOL
plane."3 On August 19, 1980, a Rallye crashed in Iowa, injuring the pilot and a
passenger. Dennis Jones, John George, and Rosa George brought separate suits
based upon this accident in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, alleging that petitioners had manufactured and sold a defective
plane and that they were guilty of negligence and breach of warranty.
Petitioners answered the complaints, apparently without questioning the
jurisdiction of the District Court. With the parties' consent, the cases were
consolidated and referred to a Magistrate. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1).

Initial discovery was conducted by both sides pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure without objection.4 When plaintiffs5 served a second request
for the production of documents pursuant to Rule 34, a set of interrogatories
pursuant to Rule 33, and requests for admission pursuant to Rule 36, however,
petitioners filed a motion for a protective order. App. 27-37. The motion
alleged that because petitioners are "French corporations, and the discovery
sought can only be found in a foreign state, namely France," the Hague
Convention dictated the exclusive procedures that must be followed for pretrial
discovery. App. 2. In addition, the motion stated that under French penal law,
the petitioners could not respond to discovery requests that did not comply with
the Convention. Ibid.6

The Magistrate denied the motion insofar as it related to answering

interrogatories, producing documents, and making admissions. 7 After
reviewing the relevant cases, the Magistrate explained:

"To permit the Hague Evidence Convention to override the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure would frustrate the courts' interests, which particularly arise in
products liability cases, in protecting United States citizens from harmful
products and in compensating them for injuries arising from use of such
products." App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a.

The Magistrate made two responses to petitioners' argument that they could not
comply with the discovery requests without violating French penal law. Noting
that the law was originally " 'inspired to impede enforcement of United States
antitrust laws,' "8 and that it did not appear to have been strictly enforced in
France, he first questioned whether it would be construed to apply to the
pretrial discovery requests at issue.9 Id., at 22a-24a. Second, he balanced the
interests in the "protection of United States citizens from harmful foreign
products and compensation for injuries caused by such products" against
France's interest in protecting its citizens "from intrusive foreign discovery
procedures." The Magistrate concluded that the former interests were stronger,
particularly because compliance with the requested discovery will "not have to
take place in France" and will not be greatly intrusive or abusive. Id., at 23a25a.

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a). Although immediate
appellate review of an interlocutory discovery order is not ordinarily available,
see Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402-403, 96 S.Ct. 2119,
2123-2124, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976), the Court of Appeals considered that the
novelty and the importance of the question presented, and the likelihood of its
recurrence, made consideration of the merits of the petition appropriate. 782
F.2d 120 (1986). It then held that "when the district court has jurisdiction over
a foreign litigant the Hague Convention does not apply to the production of
evidence in that litigant's possession, even though the documents and
information sought may physically be located within the territory of a foreign
signatory to the Convention." Id., at 124. The Court of Appeals disagreed with
petitioners' argument that this construction would render the entire Hague
Convention "meaningless," noting that it would still serve the purpose of
providing an improved procedure for obtaining evidence from nonparties. Id.,
at 125. The court also rejected petitioners' contention that considerations of
international comity required plaintiffs to resort to Hague Convention
procedures as an initial matter ("first use"), and correspondingly to invoke the
federal discovery rules only if the treaty procedures turned out to be futile. The
Court of Appeals believed that the potential overruling of foreign tribunals'
denial of discovery would do more to defeat than to promote international
comity. Id., at 125-126. Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded that objections

based on the French penal statute should be considered in two stages: first,
whether the discovery order was proper even though compliance may require
petitioners to violate French law; and second, what sanctions, if any, should be
imposed if petitioners are unable to comply. The Court of Appeals held that the
Magistrate properly answered the first question and that it was premature to
address the second.10 The court therefore denied the petition for mandamus.
We granted certiorari. 476 U.S. 1168, 106 S.Ct. 2888, 90 L.Ed.2d 976 (1986).
II
8

In the District Court and the Court of Appeals, petitioners contended that the
Hague Evidence Convention "provides the exclusive and mandatory procedures
for obtaining documents and information located within the territory of a
foreign signatory." 782 F.2d, at 124.11 We are satisfied that the Court of
Appeals correctly rejected this extreme position. We believe it is foreclosed by
the plain language of the Convention. Before discussing the text of the
Convention, however, we briefly review its history.

The Hague Conference on Private International Law, an association of

sovereign states, has been conducting periodic sessions since 1893. S.Exec.
Doc. A, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. p. v (1972) (S.Exec. Doc. A). The United States
participated in those sessions as an observer in 1956 and 1960, and as a member
beginning in 1964 pursuant to congressional authorization.12 In that year
Congress amended the Judicial Code to grant foreign litigants, without any
requirement of reciprocity, special assistance in obtaining evidence in the
United States.13 In 1965 the Hague Conference adopted a Convention on the
Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or
Commercial Matters (Service Convention), 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638,
to which the Senate gave its advice and consent in 1967. The favorable
response to the Service Convention, coupled with the longstanding interest of
American lawyers in improving procedures for obtaining evidence abroad,
motivated the United States to take the initiative in proposing that an evidence
convention be adopted. Statement of Carl F. Salans, Deputy Legal Adviser,
Department of State, Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad, S.Exec.Rep.
No. 92-25, p. 3 (1972). The Conference organized a special commission to
prepare the draft convention, and the draft was approved without a dissenting
vote on October 26, 1968. S.Exec. Doc. A, at p. v. It was signed on behalf of
the United States in 1970 and ratified by a unanimous vote of the Senate in
1972.14 The Convention's purpose was to establish a system for obtaining
evidence located abroad that would be "tolerable" to the state executing the
request and would produce evidence "utilizable" in the requesting state.
Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence

Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, in S.Exec. Doc. A, p. 11.

10

In his letter of transmittal recommending ratification of the Convention, the

President noted that it was "supported by such national legal organizations as
the American Bar Association, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the
National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws, and by a number
of State, local, and specialized bar associations." S.Exec. Doc. A., p. iii. There
is no evidence of any opposition to the Convention in any of those
organizations. The Convention was fairly summarized in the Secretary of
State's letter of submittal to the President:

11

"The willingness of the Conference to proceed promptly with work on the

evidence convention is perhaps attributable in large measure to the difficulties
encountered by courts and lawyers in obtaining evidence abroad from countries
with markedly different legal systems. Some countries have insisted on the
exclusive use of the complicated, dilatory and expensive system of letters
rogatory or letters of request. Other countries have refused adequate judicial
assistance because of the absence of a treaty or convention regulating the
matter. The substantial increase in litigation with foreign aspects arising, in
part, from the unparalleled expansion of international trade and travel in recent
decades had intensified the need for an effective international agreement to set
up a model system to bridge differences between the common law and civil law
approaches to the taking of evidence abroad.

12

"Civil law countries tend to concentrate on commissions rogatoires, while

common law countries take testimony on notice, by stipulation and through
commissions to consuls or commissioners. Letters of request for judicial
assistance from courts abroad in securing needed evidence have been the
exception, rather than the rule. The civil law technique results normally in a
resume of the evidence, prepared by the executing judge and signed by the
witness, while the common law technique results normally in a verbatim
transcript of the witness's testimony certified by the reporter.

13

"Failure by either the requesting state or the state of execution fully to take into
account the differences of approach to the taking of evidence abroad under the
two systems and the absence of agreed standards applicable to letters of request
have frequently caused difficulties for courts and litigants. To minimize such
difficulties in the future, the enclosed convention, which consists of a preamble
and forty-two articles, is designed to:

14

"1. Make the employment of letters of request a principal means of obtaining

evidence abroad;
15

"2. Improve the means of securing evidence abroad by increasing the powers of
consuls and by introducing in the civil law world, on a limited basis, the
concept of the commissioner;

16

"3. Provide means for securing evidence in the form needed by the court where
the action is pending; and

17

"4. Preserve all more favorable and less restrictive practices arising from
internal law, internal rules of procedure and bilateral or multilateral
conventions.

18

"What the convention does is to provide a set of minimum standards with which
contracting states agree to comply. Further, through articles 27, 28 and 32, it
provides a flexible framework within which any future liberalizing changes in
policy and tradition in any country with respect to international judicial
cooperation may be translated into effective change in international procedures.
At the same time it recognizes and preserves procedures of every country which
now or hereafter may provide international cooperation in the taking of
evidence on more liberal and less restrictive bases, whether this is effected by
supplementary agreements or by municipal law and practice." Id., vi.

III
19

In arguing their entitlement to a protective order, petitioners correctly assert that

both the discovery rules set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Hague Convention are the law of the United States. Brief for Petitioners 31.
This observation, however, does not dispose of the question before us; we must
analyze the interaction between these two bodies of federal law. Initially, we
note that at least four different interpretations of the relationship between the
federal discovery rules and the Hague Convention are possible. Two of these
interpretations assume that the Hague Convention by its terms dictates the
extent to which it supplants normal discovery rules. First, the Hague
Convention might be read as requiring its use to the exclusion of any other
discovery procedures whenever evidence located abroad is sought for use in an
American court. Second, the Hague Convention might be interpreted to require
first, but not exclusive, use of its procedures. Two other interpretations assume
that international comity, rather than the obligations created by the treaty,
should guide judicial resort to the Hague Convention. Third, then, the
Convention might be viewed as establishing a supplemental set of discovery

procedures, strictly optional under treaty law, to which concerns of comity

nevertheless require first resort by American courts in all cases. Fourth, the
treaty may be viewed as an undertaking among sovereigns to facilitate
discovery to which an American court should resort when it deems that course
of action appropriate, after considering the situations of the parties before it as
well as the interests of the concerned foreign state.
20

In interpreting an international treaty, we are mindful that it is "in the nature of

a contract between nations," Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp.,
466 U.S. 243, 253, 104 S.Ct. 1776, 1783, 80 L.Ed.2d 273 (1984), to which "
[g]eneral rules of construction apply." Id., at 262, 104 S.Ct., at 1788. See Ware
v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 240-241, 1 L.Ed. 568 (1796) (opinion of Chase, J.). We
therefore begin "with the text of the treaty and the context in which the written
words are used." Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 397, 105 S.Ct. 1338, 1341,
84 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985). The treaty's history, " 'the negotiations, and the
practical construction adopted by the parties' " may also be relevant. Id., at 396,
105 S.Ct., at 1341 (quoting Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318
U.S. 423, 431-432, 63 S.Ct. 672, 677-678, 87 L.Ed. 877 (1943)).

21

We reject the first two of the possible interpretations as inconsistent with the
language and negotiating history of the Hague Convention. The preamble of the
Convention specifies its purpose "to facilitate the transmission and execution of
Letters of Request" and to "improve mutual judicial co-operation in civil or
commercial matters." 23 U.S.T., at 2557, T.I.A.S. No. 7444. The preamble does
not speak in mandatory terms which would purport to describe the procedures
for all permissible transnational discovery and exclude all other existing
practices.15 The text of the Evidence Convention itself does not modify the law
of any contracting state, require any contracting state to use the Convention
procedures, either in requesting evidence or in responding to such requests, or
compel any contracting state to change its own evidence-gathering
procedures.16

22

The Convention contains three chapters. Chapter I, entitled "Letters of

Requests," and chapter II, entitled "Taking of Evidence by Diplomatic Officers,
Consular Agents and Commissioners," both use permissive rather than
mandatory language. Thus, Article 1 provides that a judicial authority in one
contracting state "may" forward a letter of request to the competent authority in
another contracting state for the purpose of obtaining evidence. 17 Similarly,
Articles 15, 16, and 17 provide that diplomatic officers, consular agents, and
commissioners "may . . . without compulsion," take evidence under certain
conditions.18 The absence of any command that a contracting state must use
Convention procedures when they are not needed is conspicuous.19

23

Two of the Articles in chapter III, entitled "General Clauses," buttress our
conclusion that the Convention was intended as a permissive supplement, not a
pre-emptive replacement, for other means of obtaining evidence located
abroad. 20 Article 23 expressly authorizes a contracting state to declare that it
will not execute any letter of request in aid of pretrial discovery of documents in
a common-law country.21 Surely, if the Convention had been intended to
replace completely the broad discovery powers that the common-law courts in
the United States previously exercised over foreign litigants subject to their
jurisdiction, it would have been most anomalous for the common-law
contracting parties to agree to Article 23, which enables a contracting party to
revoke its consent to the treaty's procedures for pretrial discovery.22 In the
absence of explicit textual support, we are unable to accept the hypothesis that
the common-law contracting states abjured recourse to all pre-existing
discovery procedures at the same time that they accepted the possibility that a
contracting party could unilaterally abrogate even the Convention's
procedures.23 Moreover, Article 27 plainly states that the Convention does not
prevent a contracting state from using more liberal methods of rendering
evidence than those authorized by the Convention.24 Thus, the text of the
Evidence Convention, as well as the history of its proposal and ratification by
the United States, unambiguously supports the conclusion that it was intended
to establish optional procedures that would facilitate the taking of evidence
abroad. See Amram, The Proposed Convention on the Taking of Evidence
Abroad, 55 A.B.A.J. 651, 655 (1969); President's Letter of Transmittal, Sen.
Exec. Doc. A, p. iii.

24

An interpretation of the Hague Convention as the exclusive means for

obtaining evidence located abroad would effectively subject every American
court hearing a case involving a national of a contracting state to the internal
laws of that state. Interrogatories and document requests are staples of
international commercial litigation, no less than of other suits, yet a rule of
exclusivity would subordinate the court's supervision of even the most routine
of these pretrial proceedings to the actions or, equally, to the inactions of
foreign judicial authorities. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
observed in In re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 754 F.2d 602, 612 (1985), cert.
pending, No. 85-98:

25

"It seems patently obvious that if the Convention were interpreted as

preempting interrogatories and document requests, the Convention would really
be much more than an agreement on taking evidence abroad. Instead, the
Convention would amount to a major regulation of the overall conduct of
litigation between nationals of different signatory states, raising a significant
possibility of very serious interference with the jurisdiction of United States

courts.
26

*****

27

"While it is conceivable that the United States could enter into a treaty giving
other signatories control over litigation instituted and pursued in American
courts, a treaty intended to bring about such a curtailment of the rights given to
all litigants by the federal rules would surely state its intention clearly and
precisely identify crucial terms."

28

The Hague Convention, however, contains no such plain statement of a preemptive intent. We conclude accordingly that the Hague Convention did not
deprive the District Court of the jurisdiction it otherwise possessed to order a
foreign national party before it to produce evidence physically located within a
signatory nation.25

IV
29

While the Hague Convention does not divest the District Court of jurisdiction
to order discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the optional
character of the Convention procedures sheds light on one aspect of the Court
of Appeals' opinion that we consider erroneous. That court concluded that the
Convention simply "does not apply" to discovery sought from a foreign litigant
that is subject to the jurisdiction of an American court. 782 F.2d, at 124.
Plaintiffs argue that this conclusion is supported by two considerations. First,
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide ample means for obtaining
discovery from parties who are subject to the court's jurisdiction, while before
the Convention was ratified it was often extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to obtain evidence from nonparty witnesses abroad. Plaintiffs contend that it is
appropriate to construe the Convention as applying only in the area in which
improvement was badly needed. Second, when a litigant is subject to the
jurisdiction of the district court, arguably the evidence it is required to produce
is not "abroad" within the meaning of the Convention, even though it is in fact
located in a foreign country at the time of the discovery request and even
though it will have to be gathered or otherwise prepared abroad. See In re
Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 754 F.2d, at 611; In re Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm
GmbH, 757 F.2d 729, 731 (CA5 1985), cert. vacated, 476 U.S. 1168, 106 S.Ct.
2887, 90 L.Ed.2d 975 (1986); No. 85-99; Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v.
United States District Court, 805 F.2d 340, 341-342 (CA10 1986).

30

Nevertheless, the text of the Convention draws no distinction between evidence

obtained from third parties and that obtained from the litigants themselves; nor
does it purport to draw any sharp line between evidence that is "abroad" and
evidence that is within the control of a party subject to the jurisdiction of the
requesting court. Thus, it appears clear to us that the optional Convention
procedures are available whenever they will facilitate the gathering of evidence
by the means authorized in the Convention. Although these procedures are not
mandatory, the Hague Convention does "apply" to the production of evidence
in a litigant's possession in the sense that it is one method of seeking evidence
that a court may elect to employ. See Briefs of Amici Curiae for the United
States and the SEC 9-10, the Federal Republic of Germany 5-6, the Republic of
France 8-12, and the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland
8.
V
31

Petitioners contend that even if the Hague Convention's procedures are not
mandatory, this Court should adopt a rule requiring that American litigants first
resort to those procedures before initiating any discovery pursuant to the normal
methods of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Laker Airways, Ltd.
v. Pan American World Airways, 103 F.R.D. 42 (DC 1984); Philadelphia Gear
Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D. 58 (ED Pa.1983). The Court of
Appeals rejected this argument because it was convinced that an American
court's order ultimately requiring discovery that a foreign court had refused
under Convention procedures would constitute "the greatest insult" to the
sovereignty of that tribunal. 782 F.2d, at 125-126. We disagree with the Court
of Appeals' view. It is well known that the scope of American discovery is
often significantly broader than is permitted in other jurisdictions, and we are
satisfied that foreign tribunals will recognize that the final decision on the
evidence to be used in litigation conducted in American courts must be made by
those courts. We therefore do not believe that an American court should refuse
to make use of Convention procedures because of a concern that it may
ultimately find it necessary to order the production of evidence that a foreign
tribunal permitted a party to withhold.

32

Nevertheless, we cannot accept petitioners' invitation to announce a new rule of

law that would require first resort to Convention procedures whenever
discovery is sought from a foreign litigant. Assuming, without deciding, that
we have the lawmaking power to do so, we are convinced that such a general
rule would be unwise. In many situations the Letter of Request procedure
authorized by the Convention would be unduly time consuming and expensive,
as well as less certain to produce needed evidence than direct use of the Federal
Rules.26 A rule of first resort in all cases would therefore be inconsistent with

the overriding interest in the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of

litigation in our courts. See Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 1.
33

Petitioners argue that a rule of first resort is necessary to accord respect to the
sovereignty of states in which evidence is located. It is true that the process of
obtaining evidence in a civil-law jurisdiction is normally conducted by a
judicial officer rather than by private attorneys. Petitioners contend that if
performed on French soil, for example, by an unauthorized person, such
evidence-gathering might violate the "judicial sovereignty" of the host nation.
Because it is only through the Convention that civil-law nations have given
their consent to evidence-gathering activities within their borders, petitioners
argue, we have a duty to employ those procedures whenever they are available.
Brief for Petitioners 27-28. We find that argument unpersuasive. If such a duty
were to be inferred from the adoption of the Convention itself, we believe it
would have been described in the text of that document. Moreover, the concept
of international comity 27 requires in this context a more particularized analysis
of the respective interests of the foreign nation and the requesting nation than
petitioners' proposed general rule would generate.28 We therefore decline to
hold as a blanket matter that comity requires resort to Hague Evidence
Convention procedures without prior scrutiny in each case of the particular
facts, sovereign interests, and likelihood that resort to those procedures will
prove effective.29

34

Some discovery procedures are much more "intrusive" than others. In this case,
for example, an interrogatory asking petitioners to identify the pilots who flew
flight tests in the Rallye before it was certified for flight by the Federal
Aviation Administration, or a request to admit that petitioners authorized certain
advertising in a particular magazine, is certainly less intrusive than a request to
produce all of the "design specifications, line drawings and engineering plans
and all engineering change orders and plans and all drawings concerning the
leading edge slats for the Rallye type aircraft manufactured by the Defendants."
App. 29. Even if a court might be persuaded that a particular document request
was too burdensome or too "intrusive" to be granted in full, with or without an
appropriate protective order, it might well refuse to insist upon the use of
Convention procedures before requiring responses to simple interrogatories or
requests for admissions. The exact line between reasonableness and
unreasonableness in each case must be drawn by the trial court, based on its
knowledge of the case and of the claims and interests of the parties and the
governments whose statutes and policies they invoke.

35

American courts, in supervising pretrial proceedings, should exercise special

vigilance to protect foreign litigants from the danger that unnecessary, or

unduly burdensome, discovery may place them in a disadvantageous position.

Judicial supervision of discovery should always seek to minimize its costs and
inconvenience and to prevent improper uses of discovery requests. When it is
necessary to seek evidence abroad, however, the district court must supervise
pretrial proceedings particularly closely to prevent discovery abuses. For
example, the additional cost of transportation of documents or witnesses to or
from foreign locations may increase the danger that discovery may be sought
for the improper purpose of motivating settlement, rather than finding relevant
and probative evidence. Objections to "abusive" discovery that foreign litigants
advance should therefore receive the most careful consideration. In addition, we
have long recognized the demands of comity in suits involving foreign states,
either as parties or as sovereigns with a coordinate interest in the litigation. See
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95 (1895). American
courts should therefore take care to demonstrate due respect for any special
problem confronted by the foreign litigant on account of its nationality or the
location of its operations, and for any sovereign interest expressed by a foreign
state. We do not articulate specific rules to guide this delicate task of
adjudication.30
VI
36

In the case before us, the Magistrate and the Court of Appeals correctly refused
to grant the broad protective order that petitioners requested. The Court of
Appeals erred, however, in stating that the Evidence Convention does not apply
to the pending discovery demands. This holding may be read as indicating that
the Convention procedures are not even an option that is open to the District
Court. It must be recalled, however, that the Convention's specification of
duties in executing states creates corresponding rights in requesting states;
holding that the Convention does not apply in this situation would deprive
domestic litigants of access to evidence through treaty procedures to which the
contracting states have assented. Moreover, such a rule would deny the foreign
litigant a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate appropriate reasons for
employing Convention procedures in the first instance, for some aspects of the
discovery process.

37

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

38

It is so ordered.

39

Justice BLACKMUN, with whom Justice BRENNAN, Justice MARSHALL,

and Justice O'CONNOR join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

40

Some might well regard the Court's decision in this case as an affront to the
nations that have joined the United States in ratifying the Hague Convention on
the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, opened for
signature, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No. 7444. The Court ignores
the importance of the Convention by relegating it to an "optional" status,
without acknowledging the significant achievement in accommodating
divergent interests that the Convention represents. Experience to date indicates
that there is a large risk that the case-by-case comity analysis now to be
permitted by the Court will be performed inadequately and that the somewhat
unfamiliar procedures of the Convention will be invoked infrequently. I fear
the Court's decision means that courts will resort unnecessarily to issuing
discovery orders under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a raw exercise of
their jurisdictional power to the detriment of the United States' national and
international interests. The Court's view of this country's international
obligations is particularly unfortunate in a world in which regular commercial
and legal channels loom ever more crucial.

41

I do agree with the Court's repudiation of the positions at both extremes of the
spectrum with regard to the use of the Convention. Its rejection of the view that
the Convention is not "applicable" at all to this case is surely correct: the
Convention clearly applies to litigants as well as to third parties, and to requests
for evidence located abroad, no matter where that evidence is actually
"produced." The Court also correctly rejects the far opposite position that the
Convention provides the exclusive means for discovery involving signatory
countries. I dissent, however, because I cannot endorse the Court's case-by-case
inquiry for determining whether to use Convention procedures and its failure to
provide lower courts with any meaningful guidance for carrying out that
inquiry. In my view, the Convention provides effective discovery procedures
that largely eliminate the conflicts between United States and foreign law on
evidence gathering. I therefore would apply a general presumption that, in most
cases, courts should resort first to the Convention procedures.1 An
individualized analysis of the circumstances of a particular case is appropriate
only when it appears that it would be futile to employ the Convention or when
its procedures prove to be unhelpful.

42

* Even though the Convention does not expressly require discovery of materials
in foreign countries to proceed exclusively according to its procedures, it
cannot be viewed as merely advisory. The Convention was drafted at the
request and with the enthusiastic participation of the United States, which
sought to broaden the techniques available for the taking of evidence abroad.
The differences between discovery practices in the United States and those in
other countries are significant, and "[n]o aspect of the extension of the

American legal system beyond the territorial frontier of the United States has
given rise to so much friction as the request for documents associated with
investigation and litigation in the United States." Restatement of Foreign
Relations Law of the United States (Revised) 437, Reporters' Note 1, p. 35
(Tent. Draft No. 7, Apr. 10, 1986). Of particular import is the fact that
discovery conducted by the parties, as is common in the United States, is alien
to the legal systems of civil-law nations, which typically regard evidence
gathering as a judicial function.
43

The Convention furthers important United States interests by providing

channels for discovery abroad that would not be available otherwise. In general,
it establishes "methods to reconcile the differing legal philosophies of the Civil
Law, Common Law and other systems with respect to the taking of evidence."
Rapport de la Commission speciale, 4 Conference de La Haye de droit
international prive: Actes et documents de la Onzieme session 55 (1970) (Actes
et documents). It serves the interests of both requesting and receiving countries
by advancing the following goals:

44

"[T]he techniques for the taking of evidence must be 'utilizable' in the eyes of
the State where the lawsuit is pending and must also be 'tolerable' in the eyes of
the State where the evidence is to be taken." Id., at 56.

45

The Convention also serves the long-term interests of the United States in
helping to further and to maintain the climate of cooperation and goodwill
necessary to the functioning of the international legal and commercial systems.

46

It is not at all satisfactory to view the Convention as nothing more than an

optional supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, useful as a means
to "facilitate discovery" when a court "deems that course of action appropriate."
Ante, at 533. Unless they had expected the Convention to provide the normal
channels for discovery, other parties to the Convention would have had no
incentive to agree to its terms. The civil-law nations committed themselves to
employ more effective procedures for gathering evidence within their borders,
even to the extent of requiring some common-law practices alien to their
systems. At the time of the Convention's enactment, the liberal American
policy, which allowed foreigners to collect evidence with ease in the United
States, see ante, at 529530, and n. 13, was in place and, because it was not
conditioned on reciprocity, there was little likelihood that the policy would
change as a result of treaty negotiations. As a result, the primary benefit the
other signatory nations would have expected in return for their concessions was
that the United States would respect their territorial sovereignty by using the
Convention procedures.2

II
47

By viewing the Convention as merely optional and leaving the decision

whether to apply it to the court in each individual case, the majority ignores the
policies established by the political branches when they negotiated and ratified
the treaty. The result will be a duplicative analysis for which courts are not well
designed. The discovery process usually concerns discrete interests that a court
is well equipped to accommodatethe interests of the parties before the court
coupled with the interest of the judicial system in resolving the conflict on the
basis of the best available information. When a lawsuit requires discovery of
materials located in a foreign nation, however, foreign legal systems and
foreign interests are implicated as well. The presence of these interests creates a
tension between the broad discretion our courts normally exercise in managing
pretrial discovery and the discretion usually allotted to the Executive in foreign
matters.

48

It is the Executive that normally decides when a course of action is important

enough to risk affronting a foreign nation or placing a strain on foreign
commerce. It is the Executive, as well, that is best equipped to determine how
to accommodate foreign interests along with our own. 3 Unlike the courts,
"diplomatic and executive channels are, by definition, designed to exchange,
negotiate, and reconcile the problems which accompany the realization of
national interests within the sphere of international association." Laker
Airways, Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 235 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 253,
731 F.2d 909, 955 (1984). The Convention embodies the result of the best
efforts of the Executive Branch, in negotiating the treaty, and the Legislative
Branch, in ratifying it, to balance competing national interests. As such, the
Convention represents a political determinationone that, consistent with the
principle of separation of powers, courts should not attempt to second-guess.

49

Not only is the question of foreign discovery more appropriately considered by

the Executive and Congress, but in addition, courts are generally ill equipped to
assume the role of balancing the interests of foreign nations with that of our
own. Although transnational litigation is increasing, relatively few judges are
experienced in the area and the procedures of foreign legal systems are often
poorly understood. Wilkey, Transnational Adjudication: A View from the
Bench, 18 Int'l Lawyer 541, 543 (1984); Ristau, Overview of International
Judicial Assistance, 18 Int'l Lawyer 525, 531 (1984). As this Court recently
stated, it has "little competence in determining precisely when foreign nations
will be offended by particular acts." Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463
U.S. 159, 194, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 2955, 77 L.Ed.2d 545 (1983). A pro-forum bias
is likely to creep into the supposedly neutral balancing process4 and courts not

surprisingly often will turn to the more familiar procedures established by their
local rules. In addition, it simply is not reasonable to expect the Federal
Government or the foreign state in which the discovery will take place to
participate in every individual case in order to articulate the broader
international and foreign interests that are relevant to the decision whether to
use the Convention. Indeed, the opportunities for such participation are
limited.5 Exacerbating these shortcomings is the limited appellate review of
interlocutory discovery decisions,6 which prevents any effective case-by-case
correction of erroneous discovery decisions.
III
50

The principle of comity leads to more definite rules than the ad hoc approach
endorsed by the majority. The Court asserts that the concept of comity requires
an individualized analysis of the interests present in each particular case before
a court decides whether to apply the Convention. See ante, at 543-544. There
is, however, nothing inherent in the comity principle that requires case-by-case
analysis. The Court frequently has relied upon a comity analysis when it has
adopted general rules to cover recurring situations in areas such as choice of
forum,7 maritime law,8 and sovereign immunity,9 and the Court offers no
reasons for abandoning that approach here.

51

Comity is not just a vague political concern favoring international cooperation

when it is in our interest to do so. Rather it is a principle under which judicial
decisions reflect the systemic value of reciprocal tolerance and goodwill. See
Maier, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction at a Crossroads: An Intersection Between
Public and International Law, 76 Am. J. Int'l L. 280, 281-285 (1982); J. Story,
Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws 35, 38 (M. Bigelow ed. 1883).10 As
in the choice-of-law analysis, which from the very beginning has been linked to
international comity, the threshold question in a comity analysis is whether
there is in fact a true conflict between domestic and foreign law. When there is
a conflict, a court should seek a reasonable accommodation that reconciles the
central concerns of both sets of laws. In doing so, it should perform a tripartite
analysis that considers the foreign interests, the interests of the United States,
and the mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international
legal regime.11

52

In most cases in which a discovery request concerns a nation that has ratified
the Convention there is no need to resort to comity principles; the conflicts they
are designed to resolve already have been eliminated by the agreements
expressed in the treaty. The analysis set forth in the Restatement (Revised) of
Foreign Relations Law of the United States, see ante, at 544, n. 28, is perfectly

appropriate for courts to use when no treaty has been negotiated to

accommodate the different legal systems. It would also be appropriate if the
Convention failed to resolve the conflict in a particular case. The Court,
however, adds an additional layer of so-called comity analysis by holding that
courts should determine on a case-by-case basis whether resort to the
Convention is desirable. Although this analysis is unnecessary in the absence of
any conflicts, it should lead courts to the use of the Convention if they
recognize that the Convention already has largely accommodated all three
categories of interests relevant to a comity analysisforeign interests, domestic
interests, and the interest in a well-functioning international order.
A.
53

I am encouraged by the extent to which the Court emphasizes the importance of

foreign interests and by its admonition to lower courts to take special care to
respect those interests. See ante, at 546. Nonetheless, the Court's view of the
Convention rests on an incomplete analysis of the sovereign interests of foreign
states. The Court acknowledges that evidence is normally obtained in civil-law
countries by a judicial officer, ante, at 543, but it fails to recognize the
significance of that practice. Under the classic view of territorial sovereignty,
each state has a monopoly on the exercise of governmental power within its
borders and no state may perform an act in the territory of a foreign state
without consent.12 As explained in the Report of United States Delegation to
Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the
taking of evidence in a civil-law country may constitute the performance of a
public judicial act by an unauthorized foreign person:

54

"In drafting the Convention, the doctrine of 'judicial sovereignty' had to be

constantly borne in mind. Unlike the common-law practice, which places upon
the parties to the litigation the duty of privately securing and presenting the
evidence at the trial, the civil law considers obtaining of evidence a matter
primarily for the courts, with the parties in the subordinate position of assisting
the judicial authorities.

55

"The act of taking evidence in a common-law country from a willing witness,

without compulsion and without a breach of the peace, in aid of a foreign
proceeding, is a purely private matter, in which the host country has no interest
and in which its judicial authorities have normally no wish to participate. To the
contrary, the same act in a civil-law country may be a public matter, and may
constitute the performance of a public judicial act by an unauthorized foreign
person. It may violate the 'judicial sovereignty' of the host country, unless its
authorities participate or give their consent." 8 Int'l Legal Materials 785, 806

(1969).13

56

Some countries also believe that the need to protect certain underlying
substantive rights requires judicial control of the taking of evidence. In the
Federal Republic of Germany, for example, there is a constitutional principle of
proportionality, pursuant to which a judge must protect personal privacy,
commercial property, and business secrets. Interference with these rights is
proper only if "necessary to protect other persons' rights in the course of civil
litigation." See Meessen, The International Law on Taking Evidence From, Not
In, a Foreign State, The Anschutz and Messerschmitt opinions of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Mar. 31, 1986), as set forth in
App. to Brief for Anschuetz & Co. GmbH and Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm
GmbH as Amici Curiae 27a-28a.14

57

The United States recently recognized the importance of these sovereignty

principles by taking the broad position that the Convention "must be interpreted
to preclude an evidence taking proceeding in the territory of a foreign state
party if the Convention does not authorize it and the host country does not
otherwise permit it." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Falzon, O.T. 1983, No. 82-1888, p. 6.
Now, however, it appears to take a narrower view of what constitutes an
"evidence taking procedure," merely stating that "oral depositions on foreign
soil . . . are improper without the consent of the foreign nation." Tr. of Oral
Arg. 23. I am at a loss to understand why gathering documents or information
in a foreign country, even if for ultimate production in the United States, is any
less an imposition on sovereignty than the taking of a deposition when
gathering documents also is regarded as a judicial function in a civil-law nation.

58

Use of the Convention advances the sovereign interests of foreign nations

because they have given consent to Convention procedures by ratifying them.
This consent encompasses discovery techniques that would otherwise impinge
on the sovereign interests of many civil-law nations. In the absence of the
Convention, the informal techniques provided by Articles 15-22 of the
Convention taking evidence by a diplomatic or consular officer of the
requesting state and the use of commissioners nominated by the court of the
state where the action is pendingwould raise sovereignty issues similar to
those implicated by a direct discovery order from a foreign court. "Judicial"
activities are occurring on the soil of the sovereign by agents of a foreign
state.15 These voluntary discovery procedures are a great boon to United States
litigants and are used far more frequently in practice than is compulsory
discovery pursuant to letters of request.16

59

Civil-law contracting parties have also agreed to use, and even to compel,
procedures for gathering evidence that are diametrically opposed to civil-law
practices. The civil-law system is inquisitional rather than adversarial and the
judge normally questions the witness and prepares a written summary of the
evidence.17 Even in common-law countries no system of evidence-gathering
resembles that of the United States.18 Under Article 9 of the Convention,
however, a foreign court must grant a request to use a "special method or
procedure," which includes requests to compel attendance of witnesses abroad,
to administer oaths, to produce verbatim transcripts, or to permit examination of
witnesses by counsel for both parties.19 These methods for obtaining evidence,
which largely eliminate conflicts between the discovery procedures of the
United States and the laws of foreign systems, have the consent of the ratifying
nations. The use of these methods thus furthers foreign interests because
discovery can proceed without violating the sovereignty of foreign nations.

B
60

The primary interest of the United States in this context is in providing

effective procedures to enable litigants to obtain evidence abroad. This was the
very purpose of the United States' participation in the treaty negotiations and,
for the most part, the Convention provides those procedures.

61

The Court asserts that the letters of request procedure authorized by the
Convention in many situations will be "unduly time consuming and expensive."
Ante, at 542. The Court offers no support for this statement and until the
Convention is used extensively enough for courts to develop experience with it,
such statements can be nothing other than speculation.20 Conspicuously absent
from the Court's assessment is any consideration of resort to the Convention's
less formal and less time-consuming alternativesdiscovery conducted by
consular officials or an appointed commissioner. Moreover, unless the costs
become prohibitive, saving time and money is not such a high priority in
discovery that some additional burden cannot be tolerated in the interest of
international goodwill. Certainly discovery controlled by litigants under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not known for placing a high premium on
either speed or cost-effectiveness.

62

There is also apprehension that the Convention procedures will not prove
fruitful. Experience with the Convention suggests otherwisecontracting
parties have honored their obligation to execute letters of request expeditiously
and to use compulsion if necessary. See, e.g., Report on the Work of the
Special Commission on the Operation of the Convention of 18 March 1970 on
the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 17 Int'l Legal

Materials 1425, 1431, F (1978) ("[r]efusal to execute turns out to be very

infrequent in practice"). By and large, the concessions made by parties to the
Convention not only provide United States litigants with a means for obtaining
evidence, but also ensure that the evidence will be in a form admissible in
court.
63

There are, however, some situations in which there is legitimate concern that
certain documents cannot be made available under Convention procedures.
Thirteen nations have made official declarations pursuant to Article 23 of the
Convention, which permits a contracting state to limit its obligation to produce
documents in response to a letter of request. See ante, at 536, n. 21. These
reservations may pose problems that would require a comity analysis in an
individual case, but they are not so all-encompassing as the majority implies
they certainly do not mean that a "contracting party could unilaterally abrogate
. . . the Convention's procedures." Ante, at 537. First, the reservations can apply
only to letters of request for documents. Thus, an Article 23 reservation affects
neither the most commonly used informal Convention procedures for taking of
evidence by a consul or a commissioner nor formal requests for depositions or
interrogatories. Second, although Article 23 refers broadly to "pre-trial
discovery," the intended meaning of the term appears to have been much
narrower than the normal United States usage.21 The contracting parties for the
most part have modified the declarations made pursuant to Article 23 to limit
their reach. See 7 Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory (pt. VII) 14-19 (1986).22
Indeed, the emerging view of this exception to discovery is that it applies only
to "requests that lack sufficient specificity or that have not been reviewed for
relevancy by the requesting court." Oxman, The Choice Between Direct
Discovery and Other Means of Obtaining Evidence Abroad: The Impact of the
Hague Evidence Convention, 37 U. Miami L.Rev., at 777. Thus, in practice, a
reservation is not the significant obstacle to discovery under the Convention
that the broad wording of Article 23 would suggest.23

64

In this particular case, the "French 'blocking statute,' " see ante, at 526, n. 6,
poses an additional potential barrier to obtaining discovery from France. But
any conflict posed by this legislation is easily resolved by resort to the
Convention's procedures. The French statute's prohibitions are expressly
"subject to" international agreements and applicable laws and it does not affect
the taking of evidence under the Convention. See Toms, The French Response
to the Extraterritorial Application of United States Antitrust Laws, 15 Int'l
Lawyer 585, 593-599 (1981); Heck, Federal Republic of Germany and the
EEC, 18 Int'l Lawyer 793, 800 (1984).

65

The second major United States interest is in fair and equal treatment of

litigants. The Court cites several fairness concerns in support of its conclusion
that the Convention is not exclusive and apparently fears that a broad
endorsement of the use of the Convention would lead to the same
"unacceptable asymmetries." See ante, at 540, n. 25. Courts can protect against
the first two concerns noted by the majoritythat a foreign party to a lawsuit
would have a discovery advantage over a domestic litigant because it could
obtain the advantages of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that a
foreign company would have an economic competitive advantage because it
would be subject to less extensive discoveryby exercising their discretionary
powers to control discovery in order to ensure fairness to both parties. A court
may "make any order which justice requires" to limit discovery, including an
order permitting discovery only on specified terms and conditions, by a
particular discovery method, or with limitation in scope to certain matters.
Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 26(c). If, for instance, resort to the Convention procedures
would put one party at a disadvantage, any possible unfairness could be
prevented by postponing that party's obligation to respond to discovery requests
until completion of the foreign discovery. Moreover, the Court's arguments
focus on the nationality of the parties, while it is actually the locus of the
evidence that is relevant to use of the Convention: a foreign litigant trying to
secure evidence from a foreign branch of an American litigant might also be
required to resort to the Convention.
66

The Court's third fairness concern is illusory. It fears that a domestic litigant
suing a national of a state that is not a party to the Convention would have an
advantage over a litigant suing a national of a contracting state. This statement
completely ignores the very purpose of the Convention. The negotiations were
proposed by the United States in order to facilitate discovery, not to hamper
litigants. Dissimilar treatment of litigants similarly situated does occur, but in
the manner opposite to that perceived by the Court. Those who sue nationals of
noncontracting states are disadvantaged by the unavailability of the Convention
procedures. This is an unavoidable inequality inherent in the benefits conferred
by any treaty that is less than universally ratified.

67

In most instances, use of the Convention will serve to advance United States
interests, particularly when those interests are viewed in a context larger than
the immediate interest of the litigants' discovery. The approach I propose is not
a rigid per se rule that would require first use of the Convention without regard
to strong indications that no evidence would be forthcoming. All too often,
however, courts have simply assumed that resort to the Convention would be
unproductive and have embarked on speculation about foreign procedures and
interpretations. See, e.g., International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.
v. Lee, 105 F.R.D. 435, 449-450 (SDNY 1984); Graco, Inc. v. Kremlin, Inc.,

101 F.R.D. 503, 509-512 (ND Ill.1984). When resort to the Convention would
be futile, a court has no choice but to resort to a traditional comity analysis. But
even then, an attempt to use the Convention will often be the best way to
discover if it will be successful, particularly in the present state of general
inexperience with the implementation of its procedures by the various
contracting states. An attempt to use the Convention will open a dialogue with
the authorities in the foreign state and in that way a United States court can
obtain an authoritative answer as to the limits on what it can achieve with a
discovery request in a particular contracting state.
C
68

The final component of a comity analysis is to consider if there is a course that

furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international
system. A functioning system for solving disputes across borders serves many
values, among them predictability, fairness, ease of commercial interactions,
and "stability through satisfaction of mutual expectations." Laker Airways, Ltd.
v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 235 U.S.App.D.C., at 235, 731 F.2d, at 937.
These interests are common to all nations, including the United States.

69

Use of the Convention would help develop methods for transnational litigation
by placing officials in a position to communicate directly about conflicts that
arise during discovery, thus enabling them to promote a reduction in those
conflicts. In a broader framework, courts that use the Convention will avoid
foreign perceptions of unfairness that result when United States courts show
insensitivity to the interests safeguarded by foreign legal regimes. Because of
the position of the United States, economically, politically, and militarily, many
countries may be reluctant to oppose discovery orders of United States courts.
Foreign acquiescence to orders that ignore the Convention, however, is likely to
carry a price tag of accumulating resentment, with the predictable long-term
political cost that cooperation will be withheld in other matters. Use of the
Convention is a simple step to take toward avoiding that unnecessary and
undesirable consequence.

IV
70

I can only hope that courts faced with discovery requests for materials in
foreign countries will avoid the parochial views that too often have
characterized the decisions to date. Many of the considerations that lead me to
the conclusion that there should be a general presumption favoring use of the
Convention should also carry force when courts analyze particular cases. The
majority fails to offer guidance in this endeavor, and thus it has missed its

opportunity to provide predictable and effective procedures for international

litigants in United States courts. It now falls to the lower courts to recognize the
needs of the international commercial system and the accommodation of those
needs already endorsed by the political branches and embodied in the
Convention. To the extent indicated, I respectfully dissent.

The Hague Convention entered into force between the United States and
France on October 6, 1974. The Convention is also in force in Barbados,
Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany,
Israel, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Singapore,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Office of the Legal Adviser, United States
Dept. of State, Treaties in Force 261-262 (1986).

Petitioner Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale is wholly owned by the

Government of France. Petitioner Societe de Construction d'Avions de
Tourisme is a wholly owned subsidiary of Societe Nationale Industrielle
Aerospatiale.

App. 22, 24. The term "STOL," an acronym for "short takeoff and landing,"
"refers to a fixed-wing aircraft that either takes off or lands with only a short
horizontal run of the aircraft." Douglas v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 96, 99, 510
F.2d 364, 365, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 825, 96 S.Ct. 40, 46 L.Ed.2d 41 (1975).

Plaintiffs made certain requests for the production of documents pursuant to

Rule 34(b) and for admissions pursuant to Rule 36. App. 19-23. Apparently the
petitioners responded to those requests without objection, at least insofar as
they called for material or information that was located in the United States.
App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a. In turn, petitioners deposed witnesses and parties
pursuant to Rule 26, and served interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 and a
request for the production of documents pursuant to Rule 34. App. 13. Plaintiffs
complied with those requests.

Although the District Court is the nominal respondent in this mandamus

proceeding, plaintiffs are the real respondent parties in interest.

Article 1A of the French "blocking statute," French Penal Code Law No. 80538, provides:
"Subject to treaties or international agreements and applicable laws and
regulations, it is prohibited for any party to request, seek or disclose, in writing,
orally or otherwise, economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical
documents or information leading to the constitution of evidence with a view to

foreign judicial or administrative proceedings or in connection therewith."

"Art. 1er bis.Sous reserve des traites ou accords internationaux et des lois et
reglements en vigueur, il est interdit a toute personne de demander, de
rechercher ou de communiquer, par ecrit, oralement ou sous toute autre forme,
des documents ou renseignements d'ordre economique, commercial, industriel,
financier ou technique tendant a la constitution de preuves en vue de
proceedures judiciaires ou administratives etrangeres ou dans le cadre de
celles-ci."
Article 2 provides:
"The parties mentioned in [Article 1A] shall forthwith inform the competent
minister if they receive any request concerning such disclosures.
"Art. 2. Les personnes visees aux articles 1er et 1er bis sont tenues d'informer
sans delai le ministre competent lorsqu'elles se trouvent saisies de toute
demande concernant de telles communications." App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a-50a.
7

Id., at 25a. The Magistrate stated, however, that if oral depositions were to be
taken in France, he would require compliance with the Hague Evidence
Convention. Ibid.

His quotation was from Toms, The French Response to Extraterritorial

Application of United States Antitrust Laws, 15 Int'l Law. 585, 586 (1981).

He relied on a passage in the Toms article stating that "the legislative history
[of the Law] shows only that the Law was adopted to protect French interests
from abusive foreign discovery procedures and excessive assertions of
extraterritorial jurisdiction. Nowhere is there an indication that the Law was to
impede litigation preparations by French companies, either for their own
defense or to institute lawsuits abroad to protect their interests, and arguably
such applications were unintended." App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a-23a (citing
Toms, supra, at 598).

10

"The record before this court does not indicate whether the Petitioners have
notified the appropriate French Minister of the requested discovery in
accordance with Article 2 of the French Blocking Statute, or whether the
Petitioners have attempted to secure a waiver of prosecution from the French
government. Because the Petitioners are corporations owned by the Republic of
France, they stand in a most advantageous position to receive such a waiver.
However, these issues will only be relevant should the Petitioners fail to
comply with the magistrate's discovery order, and we need not presently
address them." 782 F.2d, at 127.

11

The Republic of France likewise takes the following position in this case:
"THE HAGUE CONVENTION IS THE EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF
DISCOVERY IN TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION AMONG THE
CONVENTION'S SIGNATORIES UNLESS THE SOVEREIGN ON WHOSE
TERRITORY DISCOVERY IS TO OCCUR CHOOSES OTHERWISE." Brief
for Republic of France as Amicus Curiae 4.

12

See S.Exec. Doc. A, p. v; Pub.L. 88-244, 77 Stat. 775 (1963).

13

As the Rapporteur for the session of the Hague Conference which produced the
Hague Evidence Convention stated: "In 1964 Rule 28(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 1781 and 1782 were amended to offer to
foreign countries and litigants, without a requirement of reciprocity, wide
judicial assistance on a unilateral basis for the obtaining of evidence in the
United States. The amendments named the Department of State as a conduit for
the receipt and transmission of letters of request. They authorized the use in the
federal courts of evidence taken abroad in civil law countries, even if its form
did not comply with the conventional formalities of our normal rules of
evidence. No country in the world has a more open and enlightened policy."
Amram, The Proposed Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 55
A.B.A.J. 651 (1969).

14

118 Cong.Rec. 20623 (1972).

15

The Hague Conference on Private International Law's omission of mandatory

language in the preamble is particularly significant in light of the same body's
use of mandatory language in the preamble to the Hague Service Convention,
20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638. Article 1 of the Service Convention
provides: "The present Convention shall apply in all cases, in civil or
commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or
extrajudicial document for service abroad." Id., at 362, T.I.A.S. No. 6638. As
noted, supra, at 7, the Service Convention was drafted before the Evidence
Convention, and its language provided a model exclusivity provision that the
drafters of the Evidence Convention could easily have followed had they been
so inclined. Given this background, the drafters' election to use permissive
language instead is strong evidence of their intent.

16

At the time the Convention was drafted, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b)
clearly authorized the taking of evidence on notice either in accordance with the
laws of the foreign country or in pursuance of the law of the United States.

17

The first paragraph of Article 1 reads as follows:

"In civil or commercial matters a judicial authority of a Contracting State may,

in accordance with the provisions of the law of that State, request the
competent authority of another Contracting State, by means of a Letter of
Request, to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act." 23 U.S.T.,
at 2557, T.I.A.S. 7444.
18

Thus, Article 17 provides:

"In a civil or commercial matter, a person duly appointed as a commissioner for
the purpose may, without compulsion, take evidence in the territory of a
Contracting State in aid of proceedings commenced in the courts of another
Contracting State if
"(a) a competent authority designated by the State where the evidence is to be
taken has given its permission either generally or in the particular case; and
"(b) he complies with the conditions which the competent authority has
specified in the permission.
"A Contracting State may declare that evidence may be taken under this Article
without its prior permission." Id., at 2565, T.I.A.S. 7444.

19

Our conclusion is confirmed by the position of the Executive Branch and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which interpret the "language, history,
and purposes" of the Hague Convention as indicating "that it was not intended
to prescribe the exclusive means by which American plaintiffs might obtain
foreign evidence." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9 (citation
omitted). "[T]he meaning attributed to treaty provisions by the Government
agencies charged with their negotiation and enforcement is entitled to great
weight." Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184-185,
102 S.Ct. 2374, 2379, 72 L.Ed.2d 765 (1982); see also O'Connor v. United
States, 479 U.S. 27, 33, 107 S.Ct. 347, ---, 93 L.Ed.2d 206 (1986). As a
member of the United States delegation to the Hague Conference concluded:
"[The Convention] makes no major changes in United States procedure and
requires no major changes in United States legislation or rules. On the other
front, it will give the United States courts and litigants abroad enormous aid by
providing an international agreement for the taking of testimony, the absence of
which has created barriers to our courts and litigants." Amram, Explanatory
Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or
Commercial Matters, S.Exec. Doc. A, at pp. 1, 3.

20

In addition to the Eighth Circuit, other Courts of Appeals and the West Virginia
Supreme Court have held that the Convention cannot be viewed as the

exclusive means of securing discovery transnationally. See Societe Nationale

Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court, 788 F.2d 1408, 1410
(CA9 1986); In re Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm GmbH, 757 F.2d 729, 731
(CA5 1985), cert. vacated, 476 U.S. 468, 106 S.Ct. 2887, 90 L.Ed.2d 975
(1986); In re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 754 F.2d 602, 606-615, and n. 7 (CA5
1985), cert. pending, No. 85-98; Gebr. Eickhoff Maschinenfabrik und
Eisengieberei mbH v. Starcher, 328 S.E.2d 492, 497-501 (W.Va.1985).
21

Article 23 provides:
"A Contracting State may at the time of signature, ratification or accession,
declare that it will not execute Letters of Request issued for the purpose of
obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in Common Law
countries." 23 U.S.T., at 2568, T.I.A.S. 7444.

22

Thirteen of the seventeen signatory states have made declarations under Article
23 of the Convention that restrict pretrial discovery of documents. See 7
Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory (pt. VII) 15-19 (1986).

23

"The great object of an international agreement is to define the common ground

between sovereign nations. Given the gulfs of language, culture, and values that
separate nations, it is essential in international agreements for the parties to
make explicit their common ground on the most rudimentary of matters." Trans
World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 262, 104 S.Ct. 1776,
1788, 80 L.Ed.2d 273 (1984) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). The utter absence in
the Hague Convention of an exclusivity provision has an obvious explanation:
The contracting states did not agree that its procedures were to be exclusive.
The words of the treaty delineate the extent of their agreement; without
prejudice to their existing rights and practices, they bound themselves to
comply with any request for judicial assistance that did comply with the treaty's
procedures. See Carter, Obtaining Foreign Discovery and Evidence for Use in
Litigation in the United States: Existing Rules and Procedures, 13 Int'l Law. 5,
11, n. 14 (1979) (common-law nations and civil-law jurisdictions have separate
traditions of bilateral judicial cooperation; the Evidence Convention "attempts
to bridge" the two traditions.)
The separate opinion reasons that the Convention procedures are not optional
because unless other signatory states "had expected the Convention to provide
the normal channels for discovery, [they] would have had no incentive to agree
to its terms." Post, at 550. We find the treaty language that the parties have
agreed upon and ratified a surer indication of their intentions than the separate
opinion's hypothesis about the expectations of the parties. Both comity and
concern for the separation of powers counsel the utmost restraint in attributing

motives to sovereign states which have bargained as equals. Indeed, Justice

BLACKMUN notes that "the Convention represents a political determination
one that, consistent with the principle of separation of powers, courts should not
attempt to second guess." Post, at 552. Moreover, it is important to remember
that the evidence-gathering procedures implemented by the Convention would
still provide benefits to the signatory states even if the United States were not a
party.
24

Article 27 provides:
"The provisions of the present Convention shall not prevent a Contracting State
from
"(a) declaring that Letters of Request may be transmitted to its judicial
authorities through channels other than those provided for in Article 2;
"(b) permitting, by internal law or practice, any act provided for in this
Convention to be performed upon less restrictive conditions;
"(c) permitting, by internal law or practice, methods of taking evidence other
than those provided for in this Convention." 23 U.S.T., at 2569, T.I.A.S. 7444.
Thus, for example, the United Kingdom permits foreign litigants, by a letter of
request, to "apply directly to the appropriate courts in the United Kingdom for
judicial assistance" or to seek information directly from parties in the United
Kingdom "if, as in this case, the court of origin exercises jurisdiction consistent
with accepted norms of international law." Brief for the Government of the
United Kingdom and Northern Ireland as Amicus Curiae 6 (footnote omitted).
On its face, the term "Contracting State" comprehends both the requesting state
and the receiving state. Even if Article 27 is read to apply only to receiving
states, see, e.g., Gebr. Eickhoff Maschinenfabrik und Eisengieberei mbH v.
Starcher, 328 S.E.2d, at 499-500, n. 11 (rejecting argument that Article 27
authorizes more liberal discovery procedures by requesting as well as executing
states), the treaty's internal failure to authorize more liberal procedures for
obtaining evidence would carry no pre-emptive meaning. We are unpersuaded
that Article 27 supports a "negative inference" that would curtail the preexisting authority of a state to obtain evidence in accord with its normal
procedures.

25

The opposite conclusion of exclusivity would create three unacceptable

asymmetries. First, within any lawsuit between a national of the United States
and a national of another contracting party, the foreign party could obtain
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while the domestic party
would be required to resort first to the procedures of the Hague Convention.

This imbalance would run counter to the fundamental maxim of discovery that
"[m]utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is
essential to proper litigation." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct.
385, 392, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947).
Second, a rule of exclusivity would enable a company which is a citizen of
another contracting state to compete with a domestic company on uneven
terms, since the foreign company would be subject to less extensive discovery
procedures in the event that both companies were sued in an American court.
Petitioners made a voluntary decision to market their products in the United
States. They are entitled to compete on equal terms with other companies
operating in this market. But since the District Court unquestionably has
personal jurisdiction over petitioners, they are subject to the same legal
constraints, including the burdens associated with American judicial
procedures, as their American competitors. A general rule according foreign
nationals a preferred position in pretrial proceedings in our courts would
conflict with the principle of equal opportunity that governs the market they
elected to enter.
Third, since a rule of first use of the Hague Convention would apply to cases in
which a foreign party is a national of a contracting state, but not to cases in
which a foreign party is a national of any other foreign state, the rule would
confer an unwarranted advantage on some domestic litigants over others
similarly situated.
26

We observe, however, that in other instances a litigant's first use of the Hague
Convention procedures can be expected to yield more evidence abroad more
promptly than use of the normal procedures governing pre-trial civil discovery.
In those instances, the calculations of the litigant will naturally lead to a firstuse strategy.

27

Comity refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal

approaches the resolution of cases touching the laws and interests of other
sovereign states. This Court referred to the doctrine of comity among nations in
Emory v. Grenough, 3 Dall. 369, 370, n., 1 L.Ed. 640 (1797) (dismissing
appeal from judgment for failure to plead diversity of citizenship, but setting
forth an extract from a treatise by Ulrich Huber (1636-1694), a Dutch jurist):
" 'By the courtesy of nations, whatever laws are carried into execution, within
the limits of any government, are considered as having the same effect every
where, so far as they do not occasion a prejudice to the rights of the other
governments, or their citizens.
*****

" '[N]othing would be more convenient in the promiscuous intercourse and

practice of mankind, than that what was valid by the laws of one place, should
be rendered of no effect elsewhere, by a diversity of law. . . .' " Ibid. (quoting 2
Huber, Praelectiones Juris Romani et hodiemi, bk. 1, tit. 3, pp. 26-31 (C.
Thomas, L. Menke, & G. Gebauer eds. 1725)).
See also Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-164, 16 S.Ct. 139, 143, 40 L.Ed.
95 (1895):
" 'Comity,' in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the
one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the
recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative,
executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to
international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of
other persons who are under the protection of its laws."
28

The nature of the concerns that guide a comity analysis is suggested by the
Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised) 437(1)
(c) (Tent.Draft No. 7, 1986) (approved May 14, 1986) (Restatement). While we
recognize that 437 of the Restatement may not represent a consensus of
international views on the scope of the district court's power to order foreign
discovery in the face of objections by foreign states, these factors are relevant
to any comity analysis:
"(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."
Ibid.

29

The French "blocking statute," n. 6, supra, does not alter our conclusion. It is
well settled that such statutes do not deprive an American court of the power to
order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even though the act
of production may violate that statute. See Societe Internationale Pour
Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197,
204-206, 78 S.Ct. 1087, 1091-1092, 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1958). Nor can the

enactment of such a statute by a foreign nation require American courts to

engraft a rule of first resort onto the Hague Convention, or otherwise to provide
the nationals of such a country with a preferred status in our courts. It is clear
that American courts are not required to adhere blindly to the directives of such
a statute. Indeed, the language of the statute, if taken literally, would appear to
represent an extraordinary exercise of legislative jurisdiction by the Republic of
France over a United States district judge, forbidding him or her to order any
discovery from a party of French nationality, even simple requests for
admissions or interrogatories that the party
could respond to on the basis of personal knowledge. It would be particularly
incongruous to recognize such a preference for corporations that are wholly
owned by the enacting nation. Extraterritorial assertions of jurisdiction are not
one-sided. While the District Court's discovery orders arguably have some
impact in France, the French blocking statute asserts similar authority over acts
to take place in this country. The lesson of comity is that neither the discovery
order nor the blocking statute can have the same omnipresent effect that it
would have in a world of only one sovereign. The blocking statute thus is
relevant to the court's particularized comity analysis only to the extent that its
terms and its enforcement identify the nature of the sovereign interests in
nondisclosure of specific kinds of material.
The American Law Institute has summarized this interplay of blocking statutes
and discovery orders: "[W]hen a state has jurisdiction to prescribe and its courts
have jurisdiction to adjudicate, adjudication should (subject to generally
applicable rules of evidence) take place on the basis of the best information
available. . . . [Blocking] statutes that frustrate this goal need not be given the
same deference by courts of the United States as substantive rules of law at
variance with the law of the United States." See Restatement, 437, Reporter's
Note 5, pp. 41, 42. "On the other hand, the degree of friction created by
discovery requests . . . and the differing perceptions of the acceptability of
American-style discovery under national and international law, suggest some
efforts to moderate the application abroad of U.S. procedural techniques,
consistent with the overall principle of reasonableness in the exercise of
jurisdiction." Id., at 42.
30

Under the Hague Convention, a letter of request must specify "the evidence to
be obtained or other judicial act to be performed," Art. 3, and must be in the
language of the executing authority or be accompanied by a translation into that
language. Art. 4, 23 U.S.T., at 2558-2559, T.I.A.S. 7444. Although the
discovery request must be specific, the party seeking discovery may find it
difficult or impossible to determine in advance what evidence is within the
control of the party urging resort to the Convention and which parts of that

evidence may qualify for international judicial assistance under the

Convention. This information, however, is presumably within the control of the
producing party from which discovery is sought. The district court may
therefore require, in appropriate situations, that this party bear the burden of
providing translations and detailed descriptions of relevant documents that are
needed to assure prompt and complete production pursuant to the terms of the
Convention.
1

Many courts that have examined the issue have adopted a rule of first resort to
the Convention. See, e.g., Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp.,
100 F.R.D. 58, 61 (ED Pa.1983) ("avenue of first resort for plaintiff [is] the
Hague Convention"); Gebr. Eickhoff Maschinenfabrik und Eisengieberei mbH
v. Starcher, W.Va., 328 S.E.2d 492, 504-506 (1985) ("principle of international
comity dictates first resort to [Convention] procedures"); Vincent v. Ateliers de
la Motobecane, S.A., 193 N.J.Super. 716, 723, 475 A.2d 686, 690
(App.Div.1984) (litigant should first attempt to comply with Convention); Th.
Goldschmidt A.G. v. Smith, 676 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Tex.App.1984) (Convention
procedures not mandatory but are "avenue of first resort"); Pierburg GmbH &
Co. KG v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 238, 247, 186 Cal.Rptr. 876, 882883 (1982) (plaintiffs must attempt to comply with the Convention);
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.3d 840,
857-859, 176 Cal.Rptr. 874, 885-886 (1981) ("Hague Convention establishes
not a fixed rule but rather a minimum measure of international cooperation").

Article 27 of the Convention, see ante, at 538, n. 24, is not to the contrary. The
only logical interpretation of this Article is that a state receiving a discovery
request may permit less restrictive procedures than those designated in the
Convention. The majority finds plausible a reading that authorizes both a
requesting and a receiving state to use methods outside the Convention. Ibid. If
this were the case, Article 27(c), which allows a state to permit methods of
taking evidence that are not provided in the Convention, would make the rest of
the Convention wholly superfluous. If a requesting state could dictate the
methods for taking evidence in another state, there would be no need for the
detailed procedures provided by the Convention.
Moreover, the United States delegation's explanatory report on the Convention
describes Article 27 as "designed to preserve existing internal law and practice
in a Contracting State which provides broader, more generous and less
restrictive rules of international cooperation in the taking of evidence for the
benefit of foreign courts and litigants." S.Exec.Doc. A, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 39
(1972). Article 27 authorizes the use of alternative methods for gathering
evidence "if the internal law or practice of the State of execution so permits."
Id., at 39-40 (emphasis added).

Our Government's interests themselves are far more complicated than can be
represented by the limited parties before a court. The United States is
increasingly concerned, for example, with protecting sensitive technology for
both economic and military reasons. It may not serve the country's long-term
interest to establish precedents that could allow foreign courts to compel
production of the records of American corporations.

One of the ways that a pro-forum bias has manifested itself is in United States
courts' preoccupation with their own power to issue discovery orders. All too
often courts have regarded the Convention as some kind of threat to their
jurisdiction and have rejected use of the treaty procedures. See, e.g., In re
Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 754 F.2d 602, 606, 612 (CA5 1985), cert. pending,
No. 85-98. It is well established that a court has the power to impose discovery
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when it has personal jurisdiction
over the foreign party. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles
et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 204-206, 78 S.Ct. 1087, 10911092, 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1958). But once it is determined that the Convention
does not provide the exclusive means for foreign discovery, jurisdictional
power is not the issue. The relevant question, instead, becomes whether a court
should forgo exercise of the full extent of its power to order discovery. The
Convention, which is valid United States law, provides an answer to that
question by establishing a strong policy in favor of self-restraint for the purpose
of furthering United States interests and minimizing international disputes.
There is also a tendency on the part of courts, perhaps unrecognized, to view a
dispute from a local perspective. "[D]omestic courts do not sit as internationally
constituted tribunals. . . . The courts of most developed countries follow
international law only to the extent it is not overridden by national law. Thus
courts inherently find it difficult neutrally to balance competing foreign
interests. When there is any doubt, national interests will tend to be favored
over foreign interests." Laker Airways, Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines,
235 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 249, 731 F.2d 909, 951 (1984) (footnotes omitted); see
also In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation, 480 F.Supp. 1138, 1148 (ND Ill.1979).

The Department of State in general does not transmit diplomatic notes from
foreign governments to state or federal trial courts. In addition, it adheres to a
policy that it does not take positions regarding, or participate in, litigation
between private parties, unless required to do so by applicable law. See Oxman,
The Choice Between Direct Discovery and Other Means of Obtaining Evidence
Abroad: The Impact of the Hague Evidence Convention, 37 U.Miami L.Rev.
733, 748, n. 39 (1983).

See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402-405, 96 S.Ct. 2119,

2123-2125, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); see also Boreri v. Fiat S.P.A., 763 F.2d 17,
20 (CA1 1985) (refusing to review on interlocutory appeal District Court order
involving extra-territorial discovery).
7

See, e.g., Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S.
614, 630, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3355, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985); Scherk v. AlbertoCulver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 516-519, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 2455-2457, 41 L.Ed.2d 270
(1974); The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 12-14, 92 S.Ct. 1907,
1914-15, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972).

See, e.g., Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 382384, 79 S.Ct. 468, 475, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959); Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S.
571, 577-582, 73 S.Ct. 921, 925-928, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953); Berizzi Bros. Co.
v. The Pesaro, 271 U.S. 562, 575, 46 S.Ct. 611, 613, 70 L.Ed. 1088 (1926);
Wildenhus's Case, 120 U.S. 1, 12, 7 S.Ct. 385, 387, 30 L.Ed. 565 (1887); The
Belgenland, 114 U.S. 355, 363-364, 5 S.Ct. 860, 863-864, 29 L.Ed. 152 (1885);
The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170, 187-188, 20 L.Ed. 822 (1872); Brown v. Duchesne,
19 How. 183, 198, 15 L.Ed. 595 (1857); The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon,
7 Cranch 116, 137, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).

See, e.g., First National City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de
Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 626-627, 103 S.Ct. 2591, 2599-2600, 77 L.Ed.2d 46
(1983) (presumption that for purposes of sovereign immunity "government
instrumentalities established as juridical entities distinct and independent from
their sovereign should normally be treated as such" on the basis of respect for
"principles of comity between nations").

10

Justice Story used the phrase "comity of nations" to "express the true
foundation and extent of the obligation of the laws of one nation within the
territories of another." 38. "The true foundation on which the administration
of international law must rest is, that the rules which are to govern are those
which arise from mutual interest and utility, from a sense of the inconveniences
which would result from a contrary doctrine, and from a sort of moral necessity
to do justice, in order that justice may be done to us in return." 35.

11

Choice-of-law decisions similarly reflect the needs of the system as a whole as

well as the concerns of the forums with an interest in the controversy.
"Probably the most important function of choice-of-law rules is to make the
interstate and international systems work well. Choice-of-law rules, among
other things, should seek to further harmonious relations between states and to
facilitate commercial intercourse between them. In formulating rules of choice
of law, a state should have regard for the needs and policies of other states and
of the community of states." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 6,

Comment d, p. 13 (1971).
12

Chief Justice Marshall articulated the American formulation of this principle in

The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, at 136, 3 L.Ed. 287:
"The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive
and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any
restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a
diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction. . . .
"All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its
own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can
flow from no other legitimate source."

13

Many of the nations that participated in drafting the Convention regard

nonjudicial evidence taking from even a willing witness as a violation of
sovereignty. A questionnaire circulated to participating governments prior to
the negotiations contained the question, "Is there in your State any legal
provision or any official practice, based on concepts of sovereignty or public
policy, preventing the taking of voluntary testimony for use in a foreign court
without passing through the courts of your State?" Questionnaire on the Taking
of Evidence Abroad, with Annexes, Actes et documents 9, 10. Of the 20
replies, 8 GovernmentsEgypt, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,
Norway, Switzerland, and Turkeystated that they did have objections to
unauthorized evidence taking. Responses des Gouvernements au Questionnaire
sur la reception des depositions a l'etranger, Actes et documents 21-46; see also
Oxman, 37 U.Miami L.Rev., at 764, n. 84.

14

The Federal Republic of Germany, in its diplomatic protests to the United

States, has emphasized the constitutional basis of the rights violated by
American discovery orders. See, e.g., Diplomatic Note, dated Apr. 8, 1986,
from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany. App. A to Brief for
Federal Republic of Germany as Amicus Curiae 20a.

15

See Edwards, Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 18

Int'l & Comp.L.Q. 618, 647 (1969). A number of countries that ratified the
Convention also expressed fears that the taking of evidence by consuls or
commissioners could lead to abuse. Ibid.

16

According to the French Government, the overwhelming majority of discovery

requests by American litigants are "satisfied willingly . . . before consular
officials and, occasionally, commissioners, and without the need for
involvement by a French court or use of its coercive powers." Brief for
Republic of France as Amicus Curiae 24. Once a United States court in which

an action is pending issues an order designating a diplomatic or consular

official of the United States stationed in Paris to take evidence, oral
examination of American parties or witnesses may proceed. If evidence is
sought from French nationals or other non-Americans, or if a commissioner has
been named pursuant to Article 17 of the Convention, the Civil Division of
International Judicial Assistance of the Ministry of Justice must authorize the
discovery. The United States Embassy will obtain authorization at no charge or
a party may make the request directly to the Civil Division. Authorization is
granted routinely and, when necessary, has been obtained within one to two
days. Brief, at 25.
17

For example, after the filing of the initial pleadings in a German court, the
judge determines what evidence should be taken and who conducts the taking
of evidence at various hearings. See, e.g., Langbein, The German Advantage in
Civil Procedure, 52 U.Chi.L.Rev. 823, 826-828 (1985). All these proceedings
are part of the "trial," which is not viewed as a separate proceeding distinct
from the rest of the suit. Id., at 826.

18

"In most common law countries, even England, one must often look hard to
find the resemblances between pre-trial discovery there and pre-trial discovery
in the U.S. In England, for example, although document discovery is available,
depositions do not exist, interrogatories have strictly limited use, and discovery
as to third parties is not generally allowed." S. Seidel, Extraterritorial Discovery
in International Litigation 24 (1984).

19

In France, the Nouveau Code de Procedure Civile, Arts. 736-748 (76th ed.
Dalloz 1984), implements the Convention by permitting examination and
cross-examination of witnesses by the parties and their attorneys, Art. 740,
permitting a foreign judge to attend the proceedings, Art. 741, and authorizing
the preparation of a verbatim transcript of the questions and answers at the
expense of the requesting authority, Arts. 739, 748. German procedures are
described in Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of
Germany: The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on GermanAmerican Judicial Cooperation, 17 Int'l Lawyer 465, 473-474 (1983).

20

The United States recounts the time and money expended by the SEC in
attempting to use the Convention's procedures to secure documents and
testimony from third-party witnesses residing in England, France, Italy, and
Guernsey to enforce the federal securities laws' insider-trading provisions. See
Brief for United States and Securities and Exchange Commission as Amici
Curiae 15-18. As the United States admits, however, the experience of a
governmental agency bringing an enforcement suit is "atypical" and has little
relevance for the use of the Convention in disputes between private parties. In

fact, according to the State Department, private plaintiffs "have found resort to
the Convention more successful." Id., at 18.
The SEC's attempts to use the Convention have raised questions of first
impression, whose resolution in foreign courts has led to delays in particular
litigation. For example, in In re Testimony of Constandi Nasser, Trib. Admin.
de Paris, 6eme section 2eme chambre, No. 51546/6 (Dec. 17, 1985), the French
Ministry of Justice approved expeditiously the SEC's letter of request for
testimony of a nonparty witness. The witness then raised a collateral attack,
arguing that the SEC's requests were administrative and therefore outside the
scope of the Convention, which is limited by its terms to "civil or commercial
matters." The Ministry of Justice ruled against the attack and, on review, the
French Administrative Court ruled in favor of the French Government and the
SEC. By then, however, the SEC was in the process of settling the underlying
litigation and did not seek further action on the letter of request. See Reply
Brief for Petitioners 17, and nn. 35, 36.
21

The use of the term "pre-trial" seems likely to have been the product of a lack of
communication. According to the United States delegates' report, at a meeting
of the Special Commission on the Operation of the Evidence Convention held
in 1978, delegates from civil-law countries revealed a "gross misunderstanding"
of the meaning of "pre-trial discovery," thinking that it is something used
before the institution of a suit to search for evidence that would lead to
litigation. Report of the United States Delegation, 17 Int'l Legal Materials 1417,
1421 (1978). This misunderstanding is evidenced by the explanation of a
French commentator that the "pre-trial discovery" exception was a
reinforcement of the rule in Article 1 of the Convention that a letter of request
"shall not be used to obtain evidence which is not intended for use in judicial
proceedings, commenced or contemplated" and by his comment that the Article
23 exception referred to the collection of evidence in advance of litigation.
Gouguenheim, Convention sur l'obtention des preuves a l'etranger en matiere
civile et commerciale, 96 Journal du Droit International 315, 319 (1969).

22

France has recently modified its declaration as follows:

"The declaration made by the Republic of France pursuant to Article 23 relating
to letters of request whose purpose is 'pre-trial discovery of documents' does not
apply so long as the requested documents are limitatively enumerated in the
letter of request and have a direct and clear nexus with the subject matter of the
litigation."
"La declaration faite par la Republique francaise conformement a l'article 23
relatif aux commissions rogatoires qui ont pour objet la procedure de 'pre-trial

discovery of documents' ne s'applique pas lorsque les documents demandes sont

limitativement enumeres dans la commission rogatoire et ont un lien direct et
precis avec l'objet du litige." Letter from J.B. Raimond, Minister of Foreign
Affairs, France, to van den H.H. Broek, Minister of Foreign Affairs, The
Netherlands (Dec. 24, 1986).
The Danish declaration is more typical:
"The declaration made by the Kingdom of Denmark in accordance with article
23 concerning 'Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial
discovery of documents' shall apply to any Letter of Request which requires a
person:
"a) to state what documents relevant to the proceedings to which the Letter of
Request relates are, or have been, in his possession, other than particular
documents specified in the Letter of Request;
"or
"b) to produce any documents other than particular documents which are
specified in the Letter of Request, and which are likely to be in his possession."
Declaration of July 23, 1980, 7 Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory (pt. VII) 15
(1986).
The Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and Portugal continue to
have unqualified Article 23 declarations, id., at 16-18, but the German
Government has drafted new regulations that would "permit pretrial production
of specified and relevant documents in response to letters of request." Brief for
Anschuetz & Co. GmbH and Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm GmbH as Amici
Curiae 21.
23

An Article 23 reservation and, in fact, the Convention in general require an

American court to give closer scrutiny to the evidence requested than is normal
in United States discovery, but this is not inconsistent with recent amendments
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that provide for a more active role on
the part of the trial judge as a means of limiting discovery abuse. See Fed.Rule
Civ.Proc. 26(b), (f), and (g) and accompanying Advisory Committee Notes.