A Typical 1782 Case
28 U.S.C. § 1782 allows a federal court to order discovery for use in a foreign or international tribunal. After the Supreme Court’s first § 1782 decision in 2004, Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the number of § 1782 petitions increased dramatically, more than quadrupling between 2005 and 2017. In re Petition of…
Continue ReadingEnglish Court Finds No Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Case
The English High Court has applied a statutory exception to foreign sovereign immunity to claims arising from the alleged use of spyware by a foreign state to target and monitor dissidents in the United Kingdom. It is the first case to find an exception to sovereign immunity for allegations relating to spyware. In doing so,…
Continue ReadingChina’s New Data Security Law in U.S. Discovery Disputes
Discovery litigation regarding the impact of China’s Data Security Law (“DSL”), which took effect less than a year ago in September 2021, has steadily increased in U.S. courts, and it is likely to continue to increase over the coming months and years. One driver of this litigation is the uncertainty created by the newness of…
Continue ReadingFifth Circuit Issues En Banc Opinion on Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants
The Fifth Circuit has issued an important en banc opinion on foreign defendants, personal jurisdiction, and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court held in Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, except that the relevant sovereign is the United States…
Continue ReadingSDNY Rejects Service by Email on Chinese Companies
In Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-US, a federal court in the Southern District of New York (Judge Gregory Woods) rejected service by email on Chinese companies in a trademark and copyright infringement case. China and the United States are parties to the Hague Service Convention. The court reasoned that the Convention precludes service by email,…
Continue ReadingColorado Court Holds That Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal Is Not Preclusive
When a court in the United States grants a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, finding that a plaintiff’s claims should be litigated abroad, may the plaintiff instead choose to refile its claims in another U.S. jurisdiction? The answer will often be yes because the forum non conveniens dismissal does not have issue preclusive…
Continue ReadingEnforcing Chinese Judgments
It has become routine for courts in the United States to recognize and enforce Chinese judgments, subject to the same limits that are applied to judgments from other countries. Last year, a New York court threatened to upset this positive trend. Relying on U.S. State Department Country Reports noting corruption and lack of judicial independence…
Continue ReadingNo Immunity for Diplomats Who Hold Domestic Workers in Conditions of Modern Slavery
The U.K. Supreme Court issued an important decision last week in Basfar v. Wong. The Court held that a diplomat who allegedly kept a domestic employee in conditions of modern slavery was not immune from suit because the alleged conduct brought the suit within the commercial activity exception to immunity under the Vienna Convention on…
Continue ReadingCourt Holds that China’s Data Privacy Law Does Not Bar U.S. Discovery
A recent decision held that China’s new data privacy law does not bar compliance with U.S. discovery orders. In Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Syntronic AB, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero reasoned that there was no conflict between his discovery order and China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) because of an exception in the PIPL for…
Continue ReadingWhen Terrorists Default, Should Courts Consider Personal Jurisdiction?
A case from last week, Kaplan v. Hezbollah, illustrates the intricacies of consent-based personal jurisdiction in the context of default judgments and raises questions about the due process rights of terrorist organizations (and other unpopular defendants). U.S. citizens injured by Hezbollah missile attacks in Israel sued under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA). Hezbollah did not enter…
Continue Reading