In Bagatelle Little W. 12th LLC v. JEC II, LLC, No. 155123/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 19, 2024), New York Supreme Court Justice Robert R. Reed, stating “a more stringent test should apply in international discovery than in purely domestic discovery”, denied the request from the defendants/counterclaimants for letters rogatory to compel the production of documents from a nonparty company (NextStage) in France.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In a case involving a dispute over a restaurant joint venture, defendants/counterclaimants filed a motion for the issuance of letters rogatory to the appropriate authority in France to compel the production of documents from nonparty company, NextStage.

In beginning his ruling on the decision, Judge Reed stated: “In all cases involving international discovery, the court should take into account the importance of the information sought to the litigation, the degree of specificity of the request, the availability of alternative means of securing the information, the extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests of the United States, or whether compliance with the request would undermine important interests of the state where the information is located…It is well known that the scope of American discovery is often significantly broader than is permitted in other jurisdictions…Therefore, a number of courts as well as the Restatement have said that a more stringent test should apply in international discovery than in purely domestic discovery…In order to compel the production of discovery from international entities, therefore, the movant must first establish that the sought information is ‘crucial’ to the resolution of a key issue in this case”.

Referencing the defendants’ request, Judge Reed stated: “Here, defendants assert that the documents sought are ‘material and necessary to the prosecution of this action because they provide information about the investment that NextStage made in the Bagatelle family of companies’ who are purportedly counterclaim defendants in this action…According to defendants, the documents will provide information concerning the extent and nature of intercompany transfers and will establish the purported role NextStage’s investment played in counterclaim defendants purported improper transfer of funds out of plaintiff’s accounts which left it without capital to operate”.

Judge Reed added: “Defendants submit that it is necessary and convenient to issue a letter rogatory. Convenience is not the standard. Defendants fail to show how its requests differ from anything it could have requested from counterclaim defendants directly, or how the information already obtained from counterclaim defendants failed to include this vital information.”

In denying the motion, Judge Reed stated: “Defendants have not pointed to any deficiencies in production and have not established how information regarding a third party international investment is crucial to the resolution of a key issue in this case, namely, improper transfers between counterclaim defendant entities”. So, he stated: “Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs’ motion, pursuant to CPLR § 3102 and § 3108, for the issuance of letters rogatory to the appropriate authority in France (mot. seq. no. 008) is denied.”

So, what do you think? Should a more stringent test apply in international discovery than in domestic discovery – in an American court? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Image created using GPT-4’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot judge wearing a beret banging one gavel on the desk in the courtroom”.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.