Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
Headline: Court rules Hague Evidence Convention is not exclusive and remands, allowing U.S. courts to order discovery from foreign companies while treating treaty procedures as optional and guided by comity.
Holding:
- Allows U.S. courts to order discovery from foreign companies subject to jurisdiction.
- Treats Hague Convention as optional tool courts may use to obtain foreign evidence.
- Requires judges to weigh foreign sovereign interests and prevent abusive discovery.
Summary
Background
A group of Iowa residents sued two French government-owned aircraft companies after a plane crash. The plaintiffs used ordinary U.S. discovery requests for documents, interrogatories, and admissions. The French companies argued that the Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad made its procedures the exclusive way to get evidence located in France and invoked a French law that limits disclosure to foreign proceedings. A Magistrate and the Court of Appeals refused broad protection for the defendants; the Court of Appeals said the Convention “does not apply” when a foreign party is subject to U.S. court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted review.
Reasoning
The Court examined the Convention’s text and history and concluded its language is permissive, not mandatory. Several Articles use “may,” and Article 23 and Article 27 show contracting states can limit or expand cooperation. The Court held that the Convention does not strip U.S. courts of power to order discovery from foreign parties subject to their jurisdiction. Instead, the Convention remains an available method that courts may employ; it is not an exclusive, first-use requirement. Trial courts must balance the litigants’ needs and foreign sovereign interests and supervise discovery to avoid undue burden.
Real world impact
Going forward, plaintiffs and defendants in cross-border suits may seek evidence by either the Federal Rules or Hague procedures. District judges must consider foreign sovereign concerns and the French blocking statute when appropriate, but they may still order discovery from foreign companies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The decision is not a final ruling on all discovery disputes and requires further proceedings on remand.
Dissents or concurrances
A separate opinion urged a stronger presumption that courts should first try Hague procedures, warning that the majority’s ad hoc approach may undercut international cooperation.
Opinions in this case:
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?