Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 706 F.3d 92

Plaintiffs, victims and families of terrorism victims, sue Arab Bank under ATA and ATS for allegedly providing financial services to terrorists between 1995 and 2004.
District Court sanctioned Arab Bank under Rule 37 for failing to disclose documents allegedly protected by foreign bank secrecy laws.
Sanctions included a jury instruction permitting inference that Arab Bank provided support to terrorists and did so knowingly, and precluded certain withheld-material evidence.
Arab Bank sought waivers from foreign authorities but Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestinian authorities denied permission; production was incomplete.
Bank argued sanctions offend comity and due process; court balanced U.S. interests against foreign bank secrecy and found sanctions appropriate.
Appellate review focused on whether the sanctions order is a collateral order and whether mandamus relief is appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the sanctions order a collateral-order appeal?	Arab Bank: order is final and separable from merits, warranting immediate review.	Arab Bank: order is an appealable collateral order under Cohen; directly affects outcome.	Sanctions order is not a collateral-order and not reviewable on interlocutory appeal.
Is mandamus relief appropriate to vacate the sanctions order?	Arab Bank seeks mandamus to vacate sanctions that allegedly abuse discretion and due process.	Plaintiffs: mandamus not appropriate; there are adequate post-judgment remedies and no clear rights irreparably violated.	Mandamus denied; no clear entitlement and post-judgment relief available.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in balancing discovery interests and foreign bank-secrecy concerns?	Linde balance weighed U.S. interests and victims’ rights against foreign secrecy, justified disclosure.	Bank argues comity and foreign-law hardships were underweighted and findings flawed.	No clear abuse of discretion; balance accorded with precedent and comity considerations.

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (collateral-order finality and special-status review framework)
Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (1995) (collateral-order doctrine requirements)
Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (collateral-order doctrine limits; finality policy)
Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198 (1999) (Rule 37 sanctions not generally immediately appealable)
Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) (foreign secrecy does not bar judicial production in private actions)
Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987) (comity and Restatement § 442 balanced analysis in discovery abroad)
City of New York, 607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir. 2010) (novel, significant questions in disclosure of sensitive information)
Rajaratnam, 622 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (mandamus in discovery contexts with novel questions)
Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987) (comity and balancing foreign and domestic interests in discovery)
Société Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) (foreign-law compliance considerations in discovery)