Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Civil Procedure

482 U.S. 522 (1987)

Updated July 19, 2026

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryHague Evidence ConventionInternational ComityHague ConventionEvidence Conventionforeign discoveryFederal Rules of Civil Procedure

Facts

French corporations owned by the Republic of France were sued in federal court in Iowa after one of their aircraft crashed there. The parties initially conducted discovery under the Federal Rules without objection, but when plaintiffs later served additional Rule 33, 34, and 36 requests, the French defendants sought a protective order. They argued that because the requested information and documents were located in France, the Hague Evidence Convention supplied the exclusive procedures and that French penal law barred compliance with ordinary federal discovery. The Magistrate denied the requested protection as to interrogatories, document production, and admissions, and the defendants sought mandamus.

Issue

When a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a foreign litigant, must it require use of Hague Evidence Convention procedures before allowing discovery under the Federal Rules for evidence physically located in a foreign signatory nation? More specifically, is the Convention exclusive, mandatory first-use, or instead an optional method subject to a case-specific comity analysis?

Rule

The Hague Evidence Convention does not provide the exclusive or mandatory first-resort means for obtaining evidence located abroad from a foreign party subject to the jurisdiction of an American court. Instead, Convention procedures are optional and available, and a district court should decide whether to employ them through a particularized comity analysis that considers the facts of the case, the sovereign interests involved, and the likelihood that Convention procedures will be effective.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal products-liability suit in Seattle, Maya Ortiz sues NordVale Instruments, a Swedish manufacturer that has appeared and is subject to personal jurisdiction. Maya serves Rule 33 interrogatories and a Rule 34 request seeking test records kept at NordVale's office in Stockholm, and NordVale argues the court lacks authority to order production unless Maya proceeds under Hague Convention procedures.

How should the district court rule on NordVale's argument?

Explanation. The majority held that the Hague Evidence Convention does not deprive a federal court of authority to order a foreign party before it to produce evidence located in a signatory nation. The Convention is permissive and supplemental, not exclusive or preemptive. Therefore, the district court retains power to use the Federal Rules, though it should consider whether Convention procedures should be employed through a particularized comity analysis.