Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Nicolas Muzin, 61 F.4th 984

Background

Plaintiffs Elliott Broidy and Broidy Capital sued U.S.-based consultants (Muzin et al.) alleging they worked for Qatar to hack and disseminate materials; plaintiffs sought related discovery from the defendants.
Qatar filed a "Notice of Interest" and statements of interest in the district court asserting that certain documents are inviolable under the Vienna Conventions and protected by international comity, but expressly declined to intervene.
The District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel production, ruling the disputed documents were not "of the mission" under Article 24 and rejecting comity as a bar to discovery; Qatar moved this court to appeal.
The D.C. Circuit held that only a party (or one who properly becomes a party) may appeal an adverse order and that Qatar, as a nonparty that did not seek intervention or otherwise become a party below, cannot bring the appeal.
The court dismissed the appeal for lack of party status but remanded with instructions that the district court give Qatar an opportunity to intervene or take other steps to become a party (limited intervention consistent with FSIA protections) before enforcing the discovery order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Qatar, a nonparty amicus, may appeal the district court's discovery order	Only parties (or those who become parties) may appeal; Qatar did not intervene so lacks appeal rights	Qatar argued its treaty rights and sovereign interests are sufficiently "bound" to permit appeal despite nonparty status	Qatar cannot appeal as a nonparty; dismissal for lack of party status; must intervene or otherwise become a party to appeal
Whether Vienna Convention Article 24 shields documents routed through or held by third‑party contractors	Broidy: documents delivered to intended recipients or held by non‑mission contractors are not "of the mission" and thus not inviolable	Qatar: Vienna Conventions protect mission documents even if created with or delivered to contractors	Court did not decide merits; dismissed appeal on procedural grounds
Whether international comity bars discovery of the disputed materials	Broidy: comity does not prevent discovery here	Qatar: comity requires protection of diplomatic documents	Court did not reach the substance of the comity claim
Whether limited intervention would waive Qatar's sovereign immunity under the FSIA	Broidy: Qatar could limitedly intervene while expressly reserving immunity; FSIA waiver exceptions are narrow	Qatar: intervention risks implied waiver and exposure to counterclaims or FSIA exceptions	Court held Qatar could have sought limited intervention without waiving immunity and that FSIA's waiver/counterclaim exceptions are narrow; remanded so Qatar may seek intervention

Key Cases Cited

Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (defines who counts as a "party" for appellate rights and permits certain nonnamed persons to appeal when bound and given a procedural avenue below)
Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (1988) (only parties to a lawsuit may appeal an adverse judgment)
In re Sealed Case (Medical Records), 381 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (nonparty who participated in discovery dispute under applicable rules may be treated as if intervention were authorized for appeal)
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 482 U.S. 522 (1987) (courts should show due respect for foreign sovereign interests in discovery disputes)
Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (1943) (special appearance/limited participation to assert immunity does not necessarily waive sovereign immunity)
Khochinsky v. Republic of Poland, 1 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (explains FSIA counterclaim exception scope)
Wye Oak Tech., Inc. v. Republic of Iraq, 24 F.4th 686 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (narrows circumstances in which a foreign sovereign impliedly waives immunity)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural rules are valid unless they conflict with constitutional or statutory provisions)