Judicial Assistance Treaties

Another Thoughtful Decision Limiting Email Service

The interplay between Rule 4(f) and the Hague Service Convention (HSC) is intricate and challenging. In a recent order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Diana Song Quiroga of the Southern District of Texas said a lot of smart things about this interplay that bear repeating by other district courts. Three Cheers The judge denied a request in…

Continue Reading

Desperately Seeking Interlocutory Appeal

Despite some excellent opinions correctly interpreting the Hague Service Convention (HSC) and Rule 4(f)(3) in recent years, the district courts continue to be deeply divided on recurring questions of international service of process, in particular the permissibility of service by email or by other electronic means. Bill Dodge and I think such questions are clearly…

Continue Reading

New Decision on Email Service Under the Hague Service Convention

Regular TLB readers may recall that federal district courts are struggling with an important procedural question: whether they may authorize email service when the defendant resides in a country that is party to the Hague Service Convention. In Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-U.S., Judge Gregory H. Woods (SDNY) held that the answer is no. The…

Continue Reading

Further Developments in Smart Study

TLB has been following Smart Study v. Happy Party-001, a Chinese counterfeiting case in the Southern District of New York, since Judge Gregory Woods issued his thoughtful opinion last summer concluding that service by email on Chinese defendants is not permitted by the Hague Service Convention (a decision we covered in a prior blog post)….

Continue Reading

The Impossibility of Serving Russian Defendants

The Hague Service Convention is a blessing and a curse. By obligating each country that has joined to designate a Central Authority for effectuating service of process on defendants within its territory, the Convention provides a means of service that respects foreign sovereignty, complies with federal rules, and helps ensure the enforceability of resulting judgments….

Continue Reading

A Primer on Transnational Discovery

Discovery is a formal process in which each party gathers information relevant to its case. Transnational discovery may be necessary to obtain information located abroad for use in U.S. courts or to obtain information located in the United States for use in foreign courts. As a general matter, courts may order parties subject to their…

Continue Reading

A Primer on Service of Process

Serving process on a defendant does two things: (1) it asserts the court’s authority over the defendant; and (2) it provides the defendant with notice of the lawsuit. In the United States, process can be served by private parties. But many foreign states regard service as a public act that can be done only by…

Continue Reading

A Primer on Judicial Assistance Treaties

[This post is one in a series of primers on various topics in transnational litigation. More primers can be found on our topic pages, accessible by clicking Topics at the top of the page.] In transnational litigation it will often be necessary to do something within the territory of another state, such as serve process,…

Continue Reading

Seeking Second Circuit Review of Service in Smart Study

The plaintiff in Smart Study has attempted to appeal Judge Woods’ careful decision concluding that the Hague Service Convention does not permit service by email.

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Blackmun’s Prescient Dissent in Aérospatiale

In Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court (1987), the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts need not treat the procedures set forth in the Hague Evidence Convention as the exclusive or even the primary means for managing discovery of evidence located abroad. Four justices dissented in part in a remarkably prescient opinion authored…

Continue Reading

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk

Vanderbilt Law School
ingrid.wuerth@vanderbilt.eduEmail

William Dodge

George Washington University Law School
william.dodge@law.gwu.eduEmail

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School
mgardner@cornell.eduEmail

John F. Coyle

University of North Carolina School of Law
jfcoyle@email.unc.eduEmail

Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
zclopton@law.northwestern.eduEmail

Luana Matoso

Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
Bio | Posts

Curtis A. Bradley

University of Chicago Law School
Bio | Posts

Pamela K. Bookman

Fordham University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Matthew Salavitch

Fordham Law School
Bio | Posts

Hannah Buxbaum

Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Bio | Posts

Paul B. Stephan

University of Virginia School of Law
Bio | Posts

Noah Buyon

Duke University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Naman Karl-Thomas Habtom

University of Cambridge
Bio | Posts

Ben Köhler

Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
Bio | Posts

Melissa Stewart

University of Hawai'i, William S. Richardson School of Law.
Bio | Posts

Ian M. Kysel

Cornell Law School
Bio | Posts