482 U.S. 522 (1987) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S.
Must a federal court require parties seeking discovery from a foreign litigant in a Convention signatory state to proceed first or exclusively under the Hague Evidence Convention, or may it order discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subject to principles of international comity?
The Hague Evidence Convention provides optional, nonexclusive procedures for obtaining evidence abroad and does not displace the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. courts retain authority to order discovery directly under the Federal Rules. When choosing between, or tailoring, domestic discovery mechanisms and Convention procedures, courts must conduct a case-specific comity analysis that balances the interests of the United States and the foreign sovereign and considers factors such as: (1) the importance of the requested information to the litigation; (2) the specificity of the request; (3) whether the information originated in the United States; (4) the availability of alternative means to secure the information; and (5) the extent to which compliance would undermine important foreign sovereign interests or noncompliance would undermine important U.S. interests. Foreign blocking statutes do not deprive U.S. courts of the power to order discovery but may be relevant to the comity analysis.
No. The Hague Evidence Convention is not the exclusive or mandatory mechanism for obtaining discovery located abroad from a foreign party. District courts may compel discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but they must conduct a case-by-case comity analysis to determine the appropriate means and scope of discovery. The lower courts' categorical refusal to engage in that analysis was improper; the case was remanded for application of the comity balancing.
Aerospatiale is the touchstone for international civil discovery in U.S. courts. It clarifies that litigants are not required to exhaust Hague Convention procedures before invoking the Federal Rules, yet it embeds a comity-based balancing test that cabins domestic discovery when foreign sovereign interests are substantially implicated. The decision arms courts and practitioners with a flexible, factor-driven framework to manage cross-border discovery, evaluate the impact of foreign blocking statutes, and tailor orders to minimize international friction while preserving effective adjudication.