Plaintiffs: Individuals and estates, survivors and heirs of individuals who were injured or killed in thirteen separate terrorist attacks

Defendants: Credit Lyonnais is a financial institution incorporated in France

Credit Lyonnais maintains bank accounts for Le Comite de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestinians (CBSP)

CBSP claims to be a charitable organization CBSP is part of HAMAS’s fundraising infrastructure

and a member of the Union of Good HAMAS – Islamic Resistance Movement Union of Good is an org. established by the Muslim

Brotherhood and is the fundraising mechanism for HAMAS

Plaintiffs argue that CBSP supports HAMAS Credit Lyonnais has transferred money to HAMAS

through CBSP and assisted in the commission of acts of terrorism

Plaintiffs claim Credit Lyonnais is civilly liable for damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) Providing “material support and resources” to a

Specially Designated Global Terrorist and providing or collecting funds ‘with the knowledge that such funds are to be used” to support terrorism

Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 442(1)(c) Factors to consider when determining whether

to compel production of documents located abroad from foreign parties

Factors Importance of documents to the litigation Degree of specificity of the request Whether the information originated in the US Availability of alternative means of securing the

information Extent to which noncompliance with the request

would undermine important interests of the US Competing interests of the nations whose laws are

in conflict Hardship of compliance on the party from who

discovery is sought

1 – Requested information is crucial to the litigation Relevant and important to the claims and defenses

2 – The discovery requests are narrowly tailored Focused on vital issues Ex: whether CL knowingly provided material support to

Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations 3 – Information did not originate in the US 4 – Availability of alternative methods: plaintiffs

not required to seek discovery initially or exclusively through the Hauge Convention May seek an order compelling discovery

5 – Mutual interests of the US and France is combating terrorism outweigh the French interest regarding the disputed discovery Both the US and France participate in task forces

and treaties that dispute terrorist financing Both signatories to the United Nations

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Parties cannot refuse a request for mutual legal

assistance on the grounds of bank secrecy 6 – Credit Lyonnais will not face substantial

hardship by complying with plaintiffs’ requests Plaintiffs goals are consistent with the French

Government’s objectives No evidence that CL will be sued in civil court or

charged with a crime for compliance 7 – Credit Lyonnais acted in good faith

Made attempts to contact CBSP and the French Ministry

Applicability of French Civil and Criminal LawsWhether French laws apply to documents

located in the United States? French civil and criminal laws are not rendered

inapplicable by plaintiff’s possession of documents and information in the United States

The factors weight in favor of the plaintiffs

Credit Lyonnais is ordered to produce all documents responsive to plaintiff’s Document Request

Which do you think is more important: the interest of the court/litigant or the privacy interest?

Currently the US Discovery Rules trump French law and the Hague Convention. Do you think this is fair or should the Hague Convention (or any other treaty) be upheld?