Burrow v. Forjas Taurus, S.A., 1:16-cv-21606

Background

William and Oma Burrow purchased a Rossi R35102 revolver in 2012; the gun allegedly discharged when Mrs. Burrow dropped it in 2014, causing injury. Plaintiffs allege drop-fire defects in a class of Taurus/Rossi revolvers.
Plaintiffs filed a class-action products-liability complaint against manufacturer Forjas Taurus S.A. (Brazil) and distributor Braztech International, L.C. (Florida).
Plaintiffs served Requests for Production on Forjas Taurus. Forjas objected to all requests on grounds the requested documents are located in Brazil and must be obtained via letters rogatory pursuant to the Vienna Convention and Brazilian law.
Plaintiffs moved to compel production under the Federal Rules; Forjas conceded personal jurisdiction but argued international comity and Brazil’s civil-law discovery regime required letters rogatory as the first resort.
The magistrate judge analyzed Aerospatiale’s framework and applied the five-factor comity balancing test, concluding the Federal Rules govern discovery here and ordering Taurus to produce responsive documents within 14 days and to serve any supplemental objections within 21 days.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether letters rogatory / Vienna Convention procedures are a mandatory first resort for discovery of documents located in Brazil	Federal Rules control; no treaty or Vienna provision makes foreign procedures exclusive; court has personal jurisdiction so it may compel production	International comity and Brazil’s civil-law regime require first resort to letters rogatory to avoid violating Brazilian sovereignty	Court: No mandatory rule of first resort; Federal Rules may be used despite documents being in Brazil; letters rogatory not required
Whether Aerospatiale balancing favors compelled discovery under the Federal Rules	Requests are highly relevant, in defendant’s sole possession, and necessary for plaintiffs’ case	Brazil’s interests and location of documents counsel against compelled production	Court: Five-factor test favors plaintiffs (importance, specificity, alternatives, US interests); only location factor favored defendant
Whether Plaintiffs’ requests are overbroad or unduly burdensome	Requests are customary for a products-liability case and sufficiently specific	Requests use broad phrases ("relating to") and are overbroad; letters rogatory would narrow requests	Court: Requests are customary and not unreasonably broad here; any overbreadth should be addressed by tailoring, not by deferring to foreign procedure
Whether defendant waived future objections by failing to timely supplement responses	Plaintiffs sought waiver of belated objections	Defendant declined to supplement and sought to preserve rights	Court: Will not deem all future objections waived; defendant must promptly produce non-objectionable documents and may serve timely supplemental objections under the Federal Rules within 21 days

Key Cases Cited

Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U.S. 522 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for resolving conflicts between domestic discovery and foreign procedures; five-factor comity balancing test)
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (Sup. Ct.) (comity principles and treatment of foreign judgments)
Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, L.P., 795 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (letters rogatory process described as complicated, dilatory, and expensive; district court discretion to refuse letters rogatory)
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir.) (foreign secrecy laws do not automatically prevent enforcement of domestic discovery orders; relevance weighs heavily)
Vermeulen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 985 F.2d 1534 (11th Cir.) (United States’ interest in adjudicating injuries to its citizens involving foreign defendants)