Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

Background

Two French government-owned aircraft companies were sued in Iowa after one of their planes allegedly crashed and injured people. U.S. plaintiffs served interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission. The French companies sought a protective order, arguing that the Hague Evidence Convention required exclusive use of treaty procedures and that French law barred compliance. A Magistrate denied the broad protective order; the Court of Appeals held the Convention did not apply to discovery from a foreign party subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Supreme Court then agreed to decide the proper relationship between the treaty and ordinary federal discovery rules.

Reasoning

The Court framed the central question as whether the Hague Convention must replace ordinary discovery whenever evidence is located abroad. After reading the treaty text and history, the Court found that the Convention uses permissive language (e.g., "may"), contains provisions allowing narrower or broader procedures, and expressly preserves more liberal national practices. The Executive Branch and treaty history supported that the Convention provides optional tools to obtain foreign evidence. The Court therefore rejected both exclusivity and an automatic "first resort" rule; treaty procedures are available but not mandatory. It also said district courts must weigh comity and protect foreign parties from abusive or unduly burdensome discovery. The French "blocking statute" does not strip U.S. courts of power to order discovery, though it is a factor in the comity analysis.

Real world impact

Practically, U.S. courts may compel discovery under the Federal Rules from foreign defendants subject to personal jurisdiction, while plaintiffs and courts may still use Hague procedures when helpful. Trial judges must make case-by-case comity evaluations, limit intrusive requests, and supervise cross-border discovery to avoid abuse. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this approach.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun, joined by three colleagues, partly dissented: he agreed the Convention was not exclusive but argued for a general presumption that courts should first try Hague procedures and criticized the Court for providing little practical guidance.