Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd.
979 F. Supp. 2d 479
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Wultz family sues Bank of China for ATA terrorism claims arising from 2006 Tel Aviv bombing; multiple non-federal claims dismissed; only remaining ATA claim against BOC for material support to terrorists.
- Plaintiffs seek production of Chinese-located documents; BOC asserts attorney‑client privilege and work‑product protections; court granted partial production.
- Prior orders (Oct. 29, 2012 and May 1, 2018) compelled production with Chinese-law considerations and privilege‑log requirements; logs totaled thousands of entries.
- Second Circuit comity framework governs choice of privilege law (touch base) to determine applicable foreign privilege law.
- Court concludes Chinese privilege law does not recognize US‑style attorney‑client or work‑product protections; US privilege law applies for certain post‑2008 materials related to US litigation; requires amended, detailed privilege logs.
- Court orders BOC to complete production within twenty days and to amend privilege logs for post‑Jan 28, 2008 documents related to plaintiffs’ demand letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for privilege governing foreign documents | China has predominant interest; US law should apply only for US-litigation related issues | Apply Chinese law to privilege; comity/public policy support; Astra controls | US privilege law applies to post-2008 docs related to US litigation; otherwise Chinese law governs other items. |
| Documents governed by Chinese vs. US law | Chinese law lacks attorney‑client/work‑product protections; disclosure required | In-house counsel may serve as legal advisors; US protections extend to functional equivalents | Chinese law governs non-protected Chinese‑law items; US law governs post‑2008 materials connected to US litigation. |
| Sufficiency of privilege logs | Logs are inadequate; fail to identify attorneys/recipients; overbroad department‑level claims | Most logs contain required categories; amendable | Final opportunity to amend logs for post‑Jan 28, 2008 documents; failure to amend waives privilege over those items. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden Trade S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., 143 F.R.D. 514 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (touch base approach to choice of privilege law for foreign documents)
- Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (foreign-law privilege considerations; comity and statute-based limits)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 271 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (attorney‑client privilege scope; in-house vs. external counsel)
- United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 89 F.Supp.357 (D. Mass. 1950) (early articulation of strict limits on privilege)
- Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962) (principles on disclosure and privilege)