188 F. Supp. 3d 734
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Leibovitch family) obtained a default judgment under the FSIA §1605A / ATA against Iran and Iranian Ministry of Information for sponsoring a 2003 terrorist attack in Israel and now seek to execute that ~$67M judgment.
- Plaintiffs served post-judgment citations and broad Rule 45 / Rule 30(b)(6) subpoenas on two foreign non-party banks (Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ and BNP Paribas) seeking account records for Iran anywhere in the banks’ global networks and deposit freezes wherever located.
- Both banks have small U.S. footprints (Chicago branches) but are headquartered abroad (Japan, France), and both say their Chicago branches have no responsive records and cannot access overseas account data from Chicago.
- Banks moved to quash the citations/subpoenas, citing lack of personal jurisdiction over nonparties and burdens / legal prohibitions under foreign law against producing or freezing foreign-located bank records; Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery.
- The district court assessed personal jurisdiction (general and specific), minimum-contacts, fairness, and international comity (Restatement factors) and considered alternative means (Hague Convention, foreign procedures, TRIA) for executing the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction — general | Bank branches in Illinois + state registration suffice for general jurisdiction over banks | Banks not "at home" in Illinois; Daimler limits general jurisdiction to place of incorporation/PPB | No general jurisdiction (Daimler dictates banks not "at home" here) |
| Personal jurisdiction — specific / minimum contacts | Nationwide ATA service or U.S.-wide banking activity creates sufficient contacts to require discovery | Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise from Chicago/U.S. branch activity; discovery sought concerns accounts abroad | No specific jurisdiction — insufficient nexus between forum contacts and discovery sought |
| Fairness / Due process (reasonableness) | Plaintiffs need global discovery to enforce judgment; U.S. interest in remedying terrorism victims | Heavy burden on foreign banks; witnesses and records abroad; foreign legal risks; plaintiffs have weak forum ties | Exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable and unfair; favors banks |
| International comity / foreign-law conflict | U.S. courts can order discovery; FSIA/NML allow post-judgment discovery in aid of execution | Production would violate Japanese/French secrecy laws and expose banks to civil/criminal liability; alternative procedures exist | Comity and Restatement factors weigh against ordering extraterritorial discovery; motions to quash granted; compel denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic, 800 F.3d 331 (7th Cir.) (discusses FSIA execution difficulties and attachable assets)
- Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S. Ct. 1310 (U.S. 2016) (FSIA §1605A allows suits for state-sponsored terrorism but shields certain foreign-state property)
- Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, 134 S. Ct. 2250 (U.S. 2014) (FSIA does not by itself limit discovery in aid of execution)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits general jurisdiction; corporation must be "at home" in forum)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts / due process test for specific jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (reasonableness/fairness factors and care in international jurisdiction)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (analysis of specific jurisdiction and comity for third-party foreign-bank discovery)
- Reinsurance Co. of Am. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat, 902 F.2d 1275 (7th Cir.) (applying Restatement factors when foreign-law conflicts impact discovery)