Proskauer Rose International Practice Guide Proskauer Rose LLP | Proskauer.com
      Proskauer on International Litigation and Arbitration:
       Managing, Resolving, and Avoiding Cross-Border Business or Regulatory Disputes
  TRENDS  |  NEWS & EVENTS  |  CONTACT  |  AUTHORS
Text Size:  A  A  A
Print Print
  1. What materials/sources are relevant in demonstrating an issue of non-U.S. law?
    1. General principles.
      1. Rule 44.1 broadly defines the materials appropriate to determine non-U.S. law, providing: “The court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” FRCP 44.1.
      2. The only limitation in the text of Rule 44.1 is “relevance,” which nevertheless permits a court to consider “any material the parties wish to present” and “give them whatever probative value [the trial judge] thinks they deserve.” 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2444 (West 2007).
      3. One trial court dening a motion to strike expert declarations about foreign law and explained that “[t]he Court must decide what weight, if any, to give to [parties’ declarations of foreign law] and to all of the evidence the Court uses in determining [foreign] law.” Base Metal Trading SA v. Russian Aluminum, 253 F. Supp. 2d 681, 700 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), aff’d, 98 Fed. Appx. 47 (2d Cir. 2004).
      4. Broadly speaking, “in answering [questions of foreign law] a federal court is not limited to the consideration of evidence that would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence; any relevant material or source may be consulted.” Society of Lloyd’s v. Ashden, 233 F.3d 473, 477 (7th Cir. 2000) (Posner, J.).
      5. “Sources typically consulted for the purpose of determining foreign law include, but are not limited to, expert testimony and affidavits, academic publications, and a court’s independent research and analysis.” DEE-K Enters. Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd., 174 F.R.D. 376, 379 n.4 (E.D. Va. 1997).
    2. Common materials / sources employed to demonstrate an issue of non-U.S. law.
      1. Declarations or affidavits of non-U.S. law:
        1. Often, affidavits take the form of expert opinions put forth by a litigant(s). “Written or oral expert testimony … probably will continue to be the basic mode of proving foreign law.” 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2444 (West 2007).
        2. “Although, pursuant to Rule 44.1, courts may ascertain foreign law through numerous means, expert testimony … has been and will likely continue to be the basic mode of proving foreign law.” Universe Sales Co., Ltd. v. Silver Castle, Ltd., 182 F.3d 1036, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1275 (2000).
        3. Affidavits of attorneys trained in the law of the non-U.S. nation in question “are an acceptable form of proof in determining issues of foreign law[.]” Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450, 458 (1st Cir. 2000).
        4. Court determined Russian law on summary judgment motion by evaluating declarations from experts. Films By Jove, Inc. v. Berov, 154 F. Supp. 2d 432, 448-476 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).
        5. Court in considering expert affidavit of Dutch attorney explained that “[t]hough Rule 44.1 permits a court to consider any relevant material or source, expert testimony is the most common method of determining foreign law.” Wheeling v. Seatrade Groningen, BV, 2007 WL 1589497, *7-*8 (E.D. Pa. May 31, 2007).
        6. Court accepted the affidavit of a Mexican attorney further corroborating that both parents exercise patria potestas rights over a child under Mexican law. Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450, 458 (1st Cir. 2000).
        7. In determining non-U.S. law, the court considered “the affidavits of two Korean lawyers,” a business person and other documents. Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., v. Halla Merchant Marine Co., 1998 WL 128993 (E.D. La. 1998).
      2. Declaration or affidavit need not be from a lawyer and need not meet the requirements of the rules of evidence.
        1. Court accepted unsworn affidavit under Rule 44.1 for purposes of determining non-U.S. law because it is clear that “such testimony need not be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence for the purposes of determining foreign law.” Lake Charles Cane LaCassine Mill, LLC v. SMAR Int’l Corp., 2007 WL 1695722, at 2 n.3 (W.D. La. 2007).
        2. Court found that affidavits from two individuals with strong credentials in the area of international law and Austrian banking law were sufficient because “[a]n expert witness [testifying about foreign law] is not required to meet any special qualifications. Indeed he need not even be admitted to practice in the country whose law is in issue.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 40 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2444 (West 2007)).
        3. The court accepted as proof of non-U.S. law letters from an attorney, unsworn affidavits and translations of foreign law noting that “a sworn statement by an attorney – that is to say, a written expert opinion – is not a prerequisite to proving foreign law.” U.S. v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 699 F.2d 341, 343-44 (7th Cir. 1983).
        4. Litigants commonly proffer the expert opinion of “individuals such as retired judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys.” 2 Robert L. Haig, Bus. & Com. Litig. Fed. Cts. §18:109 (West 2007).
        5. Professor was expert witness about the legal system of the Vatican. Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 2006 WL 1663847 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
        6. Court accepted defendant Russian boxer’s self-submitted but undisputed “characterization of Russian property law” concerning his official residence. O’Donnell v. Shalayev, 2004 WL 2958698, at *9 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2004).
        7. Court accepted affidavit about Norwegian law from a bank officer whose “professional position [as a Norwegian bank officer made] him competent to testify to the validity of a Norwegian mortgage.” A/S Kreditt-Finans v. Cia Venetico De Navegacion S.A. of Panama, 560 F. Supp. 705, 709-10 (E.D. Pa. 1983).
        8. In denying motion to strike non-U.S. law expert, the court explained that it “may consider evidence not technically admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, so long as it is relevant.” See Canales Martinez v. Dow Chemical Co., 219 F. Supp. 2d 719, 724 (E.D. La. 2002).
      3. Statutes, codes, and other non-U.S. law materials, such as treatises, are a common means by which non-U.S. law is demonstrated.
        1. “Statutes, administrative material, and judicial decisions can be established most easily by introducing a copy of the applicable provisions or court reports supported by expert testimony about their meaning.” 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2444.
        2. “In addition to primary materials and expert testimony, a litigant may present any other information concerning foreign law that is believed to further his cause, including secondary sources such as texts and learned journals.” 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2444. Indeed, “the federal courts have relied on foreign-law treatises for some time.” Id. at n.5.
        3. “[E]xpert testimony accompanied by extracts from foreign legal material is the basic method by which foreign law is determined.” Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 713 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 917 (2000).
        4. “It appears fairly universal that written or oral expert testimony accompanied by extracts from foreign legal material is the basic method by which foreign law is proved.” Republic of Turkey v. OKS Partners, 146 F.R.D. 24, 27 (D. Mass. 1993) (internal quotations omitted).
        5. Court relied upon plaintiff’s view of applicable French law which was predicated on a French court decision but put forward without any expert testimony. The court explained that “[e]xpert testimony on foreign law is frequently helpful to an American federal court charged with finding foreign law, but there is no legal requirement that a court’s ruling with respect to foreign law be bottomed on expert opinion.” Institut Pasteur v. Simon, 383 F. Supp. 2d 792, 795 n.2 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
        6. Court considered relevant provisions of Zairean Civil Code set forth in expert opinion letters in personal injury action. Naghiu v. Inter-Continental Hotel Groups, Inc., 165 F.R.D. 413, 422-23 (D. Del. 1996).
        7. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the court presumed the allegations about Guatemalan law were true. U.S. v. Pre-Columbian Artifacts, 845 F. Supp. 544, 546 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
        8. Court relied on treatise regarding Singaporean law in determining “that courts in Singapore frequently cite to English and Malaysian case law as precedent.” Kim v. Co-op. Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleebank B.A., 364 F. Supp. 2d 346, 349 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
      4. Practice Tip: Courts tend to give deference to a non-U.S. sovereign’s interpretation of its own law when before it (i.e., a non-U.S. sovereign is a litigant or has otherwise appeared before the court).
        1. Court deferred to agency interpretation because the republic of France was a litigant. The court explained that “[g]iving the conclusions of a sovereign nation less respect than those of an [U.S.] administrative agency [under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC., Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)] is unacceptable.” In re Oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz, 954 F.2d 1279, 1312 (7th Cir. 1992).
        2. Court deferred to interpretation of the Republic of Indonesia where there were otherwise conflicting interpretations because “[w]here a choice between two interpretations of ambiguous foreign law rests finely balanced, the support of a foreign sovereign for one interpretation furnishes legitimate assistance in the resolution of interpretive dilemmas.” Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 92 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 904 (2003).
        3. Since Mexico was not a litigant, court did not need to defer to Mexican administrative agency “The fact that U.S. courts routinely give deference to U.S. agencies empowered to interpret U.S. law and U.S. court may give deference to foreign governments before the court does not entail that U.S. courts must give deference to all agency determinations made by all foreign agencies not before the court.” Court would determine conflicting presentations of Mexican law on its own. Access Telecom, 197 F.3d at 713.
        4. Court was hesitant to find that an interpretation of non-U.S. law by an administrative official was sufficient to be deemed an act of state pursuant to the act of state doctrine because doing so “might be in tension with rules of procedure directing U.S. courts to conduct a de novo review of foreign law when an issue of foreign law is raised.” Riggs Nat’l Corp. & Subsidiaries v. C.I.R., 163 F.3d 1363, 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
    3. Parties bear the burden of proving non-U.S. law once notice is given.
      1. “The parties … generally carry … the burden of adequately proving foreign law to enable the court to apply it in a particular case.” Bel-Ray Co. v. Chemrite Ltd., 181 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 1999).
      2. “The parties carry the burden of proving foreign law. ” Ferrostall, Inc. v. M/V Sea Phoenix, 447 F.3d 212, 216 (3d Cir. 2006).
      3. Party seeking to apply foreign law has the burden of proving its substance to a reasonable certainty. In re Avantel, S.A., 343 F.3d 311, 321-22 (5th Cir. 2003).
    4. Practice Tip: Courts may demand a complete presentation of the issues of non-U.S. law if the parties have not done so on their own.
      1. Before reaching a conclusion based on non-U.S. law, a district court should demand a “complete presentation” of non-U.S. law by the parties or, in its absence, engage in an independent investigation of the pertinent non-U.S. law. “The court may have at its disposal better foreign law materials than counsel have presented, or may wish to reexamine and amplify material that has been presented by counsel in partisan fashion or in insufficient detail. On the other hand, the court is free to insist on a complete presentation by counsel.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 advisory committee's note.
      2. “All too often counsel will do an inadequate job of researching and presenting foreign law or will attempt to prove it in such a partisan fashion that the court is obliged to go beyond their offerings.… In these circumstances it would be unwise to restrict the court’s line of vision to the materials formally presented by the parties.” 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2444.
      3. Court may insist on complete presentation by counsel even though non-U.S. law need not be “proved in an evidentiary sense.” Nicor Int’l Corp. v. El Paso Corp., 292 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1366-67 & n.6 (S.D. Fla. 2003).
      4. “[F]oreign law should be argued and briefed like domestic law. As with domestic law, judges may rely on both their own research and the evidence submitted by the parties to determine foreign law.” Batruk v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 1998 WL 307383, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
      5. The court felt that after reviewing the submissions of the parties and after conducting its own independent research into German law, it was unable to conclusively resolve the issue at hand, and, therefore, the court directed the parties to submit further briefing as the Court “has the authority to direct the parties to brief [an issue of foreign law] if the Court recognizes its own ignorance of foreign law.” Mackley v. Sullivan & Liapkis, 2001 WL 1658188, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
      6. Court ordered additional submissions on Italian law aspect of summary judgment motions because the original briefing was insufficient. IMAF, S.p.A. v. J.C. Penney Co., 1989 WL 54128 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
    5. Practice Tip: Failure by a district court to fully investigate a potentially pertinent non-U.S. law issue may result in an appellate court ordering a more complete presentation.
      1. Appellate Court explained that “district court did not explicitly decide [foreign law] issue” and as a result the court remanded and ordered a “determin[ation] what [foreign sovereign’s law in question] actually provides, and its significance, if any, in this matter.” S.E.C. v. Dunlap, 253 F.3d 768, 777 (4th Cir. 2001).
      2. Presentation of non-U.S. law by parties and independent investigation by the lower court were inadequate and “it would have been appropriate for the Court to demand a more ‘complete presentation by counsel’ on the issue.” But ultimately the appellate court itself determined foreign law. before dismissing complaint based on point of foreign law. Twohy v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 758 F.2d 1185, 1194-95 (7th Cir. 1985).
    6. One consequence of a failure to provide a complete presentation of a non-U.S. law issue may be application of domestic law to the issue.
      1. Court applied forum’s law where parties failed to adequately raise issue of foreign law. Court added that the forum's law should be used only if “(a) the forum state bears a reasonable relationship to the dispute, and (b) the litigants are not conspiring to avoid the policies of any other sovereign whose laws might otherwise apply to the dispute.” Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines, 864 F.2d 201, 205 (1st Cir. 1988).
      2. “When the parties have failed to conclusively establish non-U.S. law, a court is entitled to look to its own forum’s law in order to fill any gaps.” Banco de Credito Indus. v. Tesoreria General, 990 F.2d 827, 837 (5th Cir. 1993).
      3. The court was “faced with an inadequate presentation of Swiss law [by plaintiff]” and could not “assess whether New York law and Swiss law conflict” and as a result it applied New York law. But pursuant to its “free[dom] to insist on a complete presentation by counsel,” the court granted “Plaintiff the opportunity to make a future submission as to the provisions of Swiss law regarding this issue.” Donberger v. Metro. Life Ins., Co., 961 F. Supp. 506, 531 and n.22 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
      4. Court applied New York law where it deemed the submissions of the parties concerning Grenadian law to be inadequate. Gehling v. St. George Univ. Sch. of Med., 698 F. Supp. 419, 422 (E.D.N.Y. 1988).
      5. Where party with burden does not supply non-U.S. law courts have to look to their own forum’s substantive law to fill in any gaps. Naghiu v. Inter-Continental Hotel Groups, Inc., 165 F.R.D. 413, 422-23 (D. Del. 1996).
    7. Court may but does not have to conduct independent research on non-U.S. law.
      1. A court “may do its own research on foreign law, just as it customarily always has done on issues of domestic law.” 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2444 (West 2007).
      2. “There is no requirement that the court give formal notice to the parties of its intention to engage in its own research on an issue of foreign law which has been raised by them, or of its intention to raise and determine independently an issue not raised by them. Ordinarily the court should inform the parties of material it has found diverging substantially from the material which they have presented; and in general the court should give the parties an opportunity to analyze and counter new points upon which it proposes to rely.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 advisory committee's note.
      3. “[B]oth trial and appellate courts are urged to research and analyze foreign law independently.” Twohy, 758 F.2d at 1193.
      4. “This rule provides courts with broad authority to conduct their own independent research to determine foreign law but imposes no duty upon them to do so.” Bel-Ray v. Chemrite Ltd., 181 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 1999).
      5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 permits trial judges to reject the presentation of foreign law by a litigant(s) and “reach their own decisions on the basis of independent examination of foreign legal authorities.” There is no requirement for expert witnesses. Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 292 F.3d 1209, 1216 (9th Cir. 2002).
      6. Court used deposition testimony of expert whose report was not helpful. “Determining foreign law is a question of law for the Court, and the Court may consider any relevant materials, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party.” Silberman v. Innovation Luggage Inc., 2003 WL 1787123, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2003).
      7. “[F]oreign law should be argued and briefed like domestic law. As with domestic law, judges may rely on both their own research and the evidence submitted by the parties to determine foreign law.” Sealord Marine Co., Ltd. v. American Bureau of Shipping, 220 F. Supp. 2d 260, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
      8. Appellate court found that district court erred in not properly considering un-rebutted declaration of a Japanese attorney and in not performing any independent research on the issue Universe Sales Co., Ltd. v. Silver Castle, Ltd., 182 F.3d 1036, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1275 (2000).
      9. The court conducted an independent analysis of Bahamian law regarding reflective loss rule in shareholder derivative actions where parties offered opposing interpretations of rule’s applicability to dispute. Zurich Capital Markets Inc. v. Coglianese, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1054 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
      10. “[D]ue in part to inadequate research and partisan presentation of foreign law by counsel,” the court needed to conduct “independent research and analysis of foreign law” to determine that English law does not recognize cause of action for breach of good faith and fair dealing. Medline Indus. Inc. v. Maersk Med. Ltd., 230 F. Supp. 2d 857, 862 n.5 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
      11. “[F]ederal judges may reject even the uncontradicted conclusions of an expert witness and reach their own decisions on the basis of independent examination of foreign legal authorities.” Curtis v. Beatrice Foods, Co., 481 F. Supp. 1275, 1285 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
      12. Magistrate would be justified in deciding against even an uncontroverted expert affidavit of foreign law. In re Rivastigimine Patent Litigation, 293 F.R.D. 351, 359 n.17 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
      13. “The second sentence of [Rule 44.1] indicates that, beyond mere notice, failure to supply the court with an adequate presentation of foreign law may not be fatal to a party’s argument, since it empowers the court to conduct its own research.” Ishihara Chem., 121 F. Supp. 2d at 216.
      14. The court “requested further briefings by both sides after oral argument and conducted [its] own research on Mexican law” because courts “may find and apply foreign law.” Curley v. AMR Corp., 153 F.3d 5, 12 (2d Cir. 1998).
      15. “The lack of judicial expertise and the complexity of sources in these two fields – foreign and international law – often make it desirable for the court to seek assistance. In this case academic experts for defendants, plaintiffs and the government, as well as counsel, have supplemented the court’s own research and furnished helpful and reliable professional advice on the subject of international law.” In re Agent Orange Product Liability Lit’g, 373 F. Supp. 2d 7, 18 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
      16. Where the courts of the non-U.S. nation have not yet decided the question at issue in the case, the U.S. court must independently determine the foreign law. The court here determined that under Romanian law insurer was successor-in-interest of original Romanian defendant in action, based on analysis of two United Kingdom court decisions so holding under Romanian law. See Gen. Star Nat. Ins. Co. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat, 289 F.3d 434, 439 (6th Cir. 2002).
      17. Where court felt that opposing experts had cogently argued their respective positions under non-U.S. law, it would “appoint a special master to assist [the court] in identifying and applying Thai law to the parties’ claim and defenses.” Finance One Public Co. Ltd. v. Lehman Bros. Special Fin., Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 395, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), aff'd, 414 F.3d 325 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct 2968 (2006).
      18. Where a party gave notice that non-U.S. law was at issue, but provided the court with no information about the non-U.S. law, the district court was justified in applying its own law to the matter because “[t]he district court is not required to conduct its own research into the content of foreign law if the party urging its application declines to do so.” Mutual Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., Inc., 358 F.3d 1312, 1321 (11th Cir. 2004).
      19. “Although the court is permitted to take judicial notice of authoritative statements of foreign law, nothing requires the court to conduct its own research into obscure sources.” McGhee v. Arabiam American Oil Co., 871 F.2d 1412, 1424 n.10 (9th Cir. 1989).
    8. Court has discretion to refuse to consider or give little weight to sources of non-U.S. law.
      1. “Where courts have refused to consider certain materials [concerning foreign law], they usually have done so on the ground that the materials are speculative, devoid of factual or legal support, and/or otherwise unreliable.” 2 Robert L. Haig, Bus. & Com. Litig. Fed. Cts. §18:109 (West 2007).
      2. Federal courts “are not required to take all allegations of [foreign] law proffered by [a party] to be true.” Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 28 n.2 (2d Cir. 1998).
      3. When plaintiff merely provided “the text of the Hamburg Rules and a list of nations, including Tunisia, that have enacted them into law” but not “expert testimony, the text of the actual enactment, Tunisian court decisions, excerpts from treatises, or any other authoritative sources,” plaintiff failed to satisfy “the burden of establishing Tunisian law.” As a result, the court assumed that Tunisian law was the same as U.S. law. Ferrostal, 447 F.3d at 218.
      4. Court did not give weight to a German court decision on service of process, proffered by defendant, which addressed issue under German law prior to German ratification of the Hague Convention. Ackerman v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 838 n.7 (2d Cir. 1986).
      5. Court refused to consider affidavit that “lack[ed] any probative exposition of German principles of contract interpretation, and reference[d] no authority on German law principles.” Nor did the court choose to engage in independent research; instead the court applied New York law, the “only other conceivably applicable law.” Pfizer Inc. v. Elan Pharma. Research Corp., 812 F. Supp. 1352, 1360 (D. Del. 1993).
      6. Court held that parties submissions on foreign law were insufficient because they were simply “affidavits from their own counsel in the prior Italian proceeding” who were simply pressing “their views of Italian law[.]” The court explained that since these submissions were from “interested sources who may be motivated to justify their own prior conduct” these were unreliable sources Evergreen Marine Corp.(Taiwan) Ltd. v. Global Terminal & Container, 2000 WL 1683449, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
      7. Expert testimony on Italian law was insufficient because the lawyer was “not a disinterested expert and had provided little basis for assessing his expertise or weighing his opinions.” Farrell Lines Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly Corp., 32 F. Supp. 2d 118, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
    9. Appellate court may consider non-U.S. law material not considered by lower court so long as appropriate notice was given in the lower court.
      1. Parties may present to the Appellate Court new non-U.S. law material supplementing those proffered before the district court, and the court may further examine non-U.S. law issues sua sponte. “[A]ppellate courts should be free to [further] examine foreign law questions on appeal” and order supplemental briefing by the parties.  U.S. v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 490-91 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citations omitted). 
      2. “We may consider [foreign law] materials not considered by the District Court.” Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Sea Phoenix, 447 F.3d 212, 216 (3d Cir. 2006).
      3. “In interpreting and applying [foreign] law, we may consider any relevant material or source, including the legal authorities supplied by the parties on appeal as well as those authorities presented to the district court below.” Carlisle Ventures, Inc. v. Banco Español de Credito, S.A., 176 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 1999).
      4. Appellate Court may consider materials not considered by the District Court. Grupo Protexa, 20 F.3d at 1239.
      5. “Both the text of the rule and the advisory committee notes make it clear that we are not limited to the material presented to the district court in analyzing issues of foreign law but may do our own supplemental research.” Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 488 (3d Cir. 1993).
    10. Practice Tip: A party claiming that non-U.S. law bars discovery faces a higher burden than for other areas of non-U.S. law.
      1. Party claiming that non-U.S. law bars discovery faces a higher burden “of demonstrating that such law actually bars the production or testimony at issue.” “The party must describe, inter alia, the provisions of the foreign law, the basis for its relevance, and the application of the foreign law to the facts of the case.” Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 2007 WL 1558567, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 25, 2007) (internal quotations omitted).
      2. A party claiming that non-U.S. law bars discovery has a higher burden of determining that such law actually bars discovery. The party must provide the court with information of sufficient particularity and specificity to allow the court to determine whether non-U.S. law in fact prohibits the discovery. Weiss v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, PLC, 2007 WL 1460933, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2007).
      3. “[T]he party relying on foreign law bears the burden of demonstrating that such law actually bars the production or testimony at issue.” [T]o meet that burden, the party resisting discovery must provide the Court with information of sufficient particularity and specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the discovery sought is indeed prohibited by foreign law.” Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 231 F.R.D. 538, 540 (N.D. Ill. 20040) (citations omitted).
      4. Party claiming that discovery is barred by non-U.S. law “must provide the Court with information of sufficient particularity and specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the discovery sought is indeed prohibited by foreign law.” Once a litigant has invoked foreign law as a purported bar to discovery, a court, “[i]n deciding the propriety of ordering disclosures prohibited by the law of a foreign nation, … should consider: (1) the competing interests of the nations whose laws are in conflict; (2) the hardship of compliance on the party or witness from whom discovery is sought; (3) the importance to the litigation of the information sought; and (4) the good faith of the party resisting discovery.” Alfadda v. Fenn, 149 F.R.D. 28, 34 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

< Previous Section

ideology-miner