A Comity of Errors: The Rise, Fall, and Return of International Comity in Transnational Discovery

Diego A. Zambrano
{"title":"A Comity of Errors: The Rise, Fall, and Return of International Comity in Transnational Discovery","authors":"Diego A. Zambrano","doi":"10.15779/Z384K2P","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"No feature of U.S. law has rankled foreign nations more than the supposed “legal imperialism” of discovery requests for information located abroad to be used in U.S. litigation or investigations. China, France, Germany, and Switzerland have threatened the stability of bilateral relations with the United States due to overbroad transnational discovery requests. For three decades, when faced with concerns of international comity in the discovery context, U.S. courts ruled overwhelmingly in favor of discovery through the Federal Rules, rendering international comity a dead concept.Recent case law, however, shows that this paradigm is coming to an end. In a trilogy of cases decided, respectively, by the United States Supreme Court (Daimler), the Second Circuit (Gucci), and the New York State Court of Appeals (Motorola), each court rejected attempts by plaintiffs to subject foreign entities to jurisdiction in the United States or otherwise impose on them overbroad duties, including those in conflict with foreign laws. Prominently relying on “international comity,” each decision limited the reach of U.S. courts and emphasized the need for harmony in the international legal system. These three cases are groundbreaking and should lead to changes in U.S. transnational discovery.This Article analyzes this recent revival of international comity. First, it explores the history of international comity and its interaction with broad U.S. discovery rules. Second, it briefly reviews the Supreme Court case Aerospatiale, which dealt a blow to international comity. Third, this Article analyzes how Daimler, Gucci, and Motorola relied on comity to reach their holdings and argues that international comity has been revived in the context of discovery. Finally, this Article takes a normative approach and argues that U.S. courts should engage in a qualitative limitation on the kinds of U.S. interests that are significant in the transnational discovery context.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z384K2P","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

No feature of U.S. law has rankled foreign nations more than the supposed “legal imperialism” of discovery requests for information located abroad to be used in U.S. litigation or investigations. China, France, Germany, and Switzerland have threatened the stability of bilateral relations with the United States due to overbroad transnational discovery requests. For three decades, when faced with concerns of international comity in the discovery context, U.S. courts ruled overwhelmingly in favor of discovery through the Federal Rules, rendering international comity a dead concept.Recent case law, however, shows that this paradigm is coming to an end. In a trilogy of cases decided, respectively, by the United States Supreme Court (Daimler), the Second Circuit (Gucci), and the New York State Court of Appeals (Motorola), each court rejected attempts by plaintiffs to subject foreign entities to jurisdiction in the United States or otherwise impose on them overbroad duties, including those in conflict with foreign laws. Prominently relying on “international comity,” each decision limited the reach of U.S. courts and emphasized the need for harmony in the international legal system. These three cases are groundbreaking and should lead to changes in U.S. transnational discovery.This Article analyzes this recent revival of international comity. First, it explores the history of international comity and its interaction with broad U.S. discovery rules. Second, it briefly reviews the Supreme Court case Aerospatiale, which dealt a blow to international comity. Third, this Article analyzes how Daimler, Gucci, and Motorola relied on comity to reach their holdings and argues that international comity has been revived in the context of discovery. Finally, this Article takes a normative approach and argues that U.S. courts should engage in a qualitative limitation on the kinds of U.S. interests that are significant in the transnational discovery context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
错误的礼让:跨国发现中国际礼让的兴起、衰落与回归
美国法律中最令外国不满的是所谓的“法律帝国主义”,即要求在美国诉讼或调查中使用位于国外的信息。中国、法国、德国和瑞士由于跨国证据开示请求过于宽泛,威胁到了与美国双边关系的稳定。三十年来,当面对证据开示背景下的国际礼让问题时,美国法院以压倒多数的裁决支持通过《联邦规则》进行证据开示,使国际礼让成为一个死亡的概念。然而,最近的判例法表明,这种模式正在走向终结。在美国最高法院(戴姆勒)、第二巡回法院(古驰)和纽约州上诉法院(摩托罗拉)分别裁决的三部曲案件中,每个法院都驳回了原告要求外国实体接受美国管辖权或以其他方式对其施加过度义务的企图,包括与外国法律相冲突的义务。每项裁决都以“国际礼让”为主要依据,限制了美国法院的权限,强调了国际法律体系和谐的必要性。这三个案例是开创性的,应该会导致美国跨国发现的变化。这篇文章分析了最近国际礼让的复兴。首先,它探讨了国际礼让的历史及其与美国广泛的发现规则的相互作用。其次,简要回顾了对国际礼让造成打击的最高法院“航空航天案”。第三,本文分析了戴姆勒、古驰和摩托罗拉是如何依靠礼让来获得他们的股份的,并认为在发现的背景下,国际礼让已经复苏。最后,本文采用了一种规范的方法,并认为美国法院应该对在跨国发现背景下具有重要意义的美国利益种类进行定性限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Maritime Interdiction of North Korean Ships under UN Sanctions The South China Sea as a Challenge to International Law and to International Legal Scholarship Back in the Game: International Humanitarian Lawmaking by States International Law and Corporate Participation in Times of Armed Conflict Reversing the Two Wrong Turns in the Economic Analysis of International Law: A Club Goods Theory of Treaty Membership & European Integration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1