841 F. Supp. 2d 769
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Lantheus seeks declaratory relief and money damages for Zurich's alleged failure to indemnify losses from the NRU Reactor shutdown.
- NRU Reactor at Chalk River, Canada, was shut for 15 months in 2009–2010 due to vessel damage, causing a global Moly-99 shortage used in Lantheus’ radiopharmaceuticals.
- Lantheus seeks AECL documents/deposition testimony via amended letters rogatory to test whether exclusions in Zurich’s policy apply.
- AECL, a Canadian Crown corporation, is claimed to be immune from U.S. discovery; Ontario Court previously dismissed enforcement of letters rogatory without prejudice, citing FSIA and jurisdictional concerns.
- Court granted Lantheus’s motion for amended letters rogatory, finding the FSIA is not a bar and, alternatively, that AECL’s conduct falls within the FSIA’s commercial activity exception, justifying the letters rogatory under comity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA bars issuing amended letters rogatory. | FSIA does not govern letters rogatory; comity controls. | FSIA immunizes foreign sovereigns; letters rogatory would bypass immunity. | FSIA not a barrier to issuing amended letters rogatory. |
| Whether AECL’s NRU Reactor operations fall within FSIA’s commercial activity exception. | AECL’s commercial activity in supplying isotopes has direct U.S. impact. | AECL’s reactor operation is sovereign, not commercial. | Commercial activity exception applies; letters rogatory may issue. |
| Whether the Court may issue letters rogatory without jurisdictional discovery about AECL. | Discovery unnecessary; record sufficient to decide. | Need jurisdictional discovery to test immunity questions. | Court found record sufficient; jurisdictional discovery not required. |
| Whether comity factors favor granting amended letters rogatory despite comity concerns. | Letters rogatory promote justice and cooperation; information is vital. | Comity and national security considerations weigh against compelled discovery. | Aerospatiale comity factors support issuance of amended letters rogatory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weltover, Inc. v. Republic of Argentina, 504 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1992) (commercial activity and direct effect analysis under FSIA)
- Globe Nuclear Services and Supply (GNSS), Ltd. v. AO Techsnabexport, 376 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2004) (FSIA commercial activity: private-like operation of resource matters)
- MOL, Inc. v. Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, 736 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 1984) (government resource regulation can be sovereign activity)
- Globe Nuclear Services and Supply (GNSS), Ltd. v. AO Techsnabexport, 376 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2004) (commercial activity exception applies to resource contracts)
- In re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2011) (intersections of Rule 28(b) and 26 discovery abroad)
- Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 105 F.R.D. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (comity-based letters rogatory and discovery)
- In re Metallgesellschaft, 121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997) (test of comity in international discovery requests)
- United Kingdom v. United States, 238 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2001) (reciprocity considerations in cross-border discovery)
- Milliken & Co. v. Bank of China, 758 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Aerospatiale factors and comity considerations)
- Aerospatiale v. Firestone, 482 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1987) (comity and international discovery framework)