Volkswagenwerk A.G. v. Joseph and Barbara Falzon, Etc. No. A-875
Headline: Court grants temporary pause on depositions of German-based company employees, blocking the scheduled testimony while state and federal courts consider whether international treaty rules bar those depositions.
Holding: Justice O'Connor agreed to hear the emergency application and granted a temporary stay pausing depositions of the company's German-resident employees while state and federal courts decide the treaty-based challenge.
- Pauses depositions of German-resident employees while appeals proceed.
- Gives the Michigan Supreme Court time to decide the emergency stay request.
- Preserves the company’s treaty-based objection during review.
Summary
Background
A German corporation is defending a lawsuit in Michigan state courts. The people suing want to depose several company employees who live in the Federal Republic of Germany. The company argued that the plaintiffs’ proposed method violated the Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (a treaty between the United States and Germany, cited at 28 U.S.C. §1781). The trial court denied the company’s motion, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal, and the company sought review by the Michigan Supreme Court. After various filings and an earlier stay by the Chief Justice, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave on February 22, 1983, plaintiffs scheduled new deposition dates, and the company again sought emergency relief.
Reasoning
Justice O’Connor considered whether to hear the company’s emergency application even though Rule 44.4 normally requires parties to seek relief first from lower courts. She explained that Rule 44.4 permits direct review only in "most extraordinary circumstances," and concluded this case met that standard. The prior stay by the Chief Justice indicated a meaningful chance the Court would review the case, a significant possibility the company might prevail, and that denial of a stay could cause irreparable harm. At the same time, she emphasized that the Michigan Supreme Court should have an opportunity to rule first. Balancing these points, she agreed to entertain the application and granted a stay.
Real world impact
The order pauses the scheduled depositions of the German-resident employees while the Michigan Supreme Court and this Court consider the company’s treaty-based challenge. The pause is temporary and procedural; it preserves the company’s objection during appeals but does not decide the underlying merits of the dispute.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?