1 / 10

Strauss v Credit Lyonnais, S.A. 242 F.R.D. 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

Strauss v Credit Lyonnais, S.A. 242 F.R.D. 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Parties. Plaintiffs: Individuals and estates, survivors and heirs of individuals who were injured or killed in thirteen separate terrorist attacks Defendants: Credit Lyonnais is a financial institution incorporated in France.

nassor
Télécharger la présentation

Strauss v Credit Lyonnais, S.A. 242 F.R.D. 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Strauss vCredit Lyonnais, S.A.242 F.R.D. 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

  2. Parties • Plaintiffs: Individuals and estates, survivors and heirs of individuals who were injured or killed in thirteen separate terrorist attacks • Defendants: Credit Lyonnais is a financial institution incorporated in France

  3. FACTS • Credit Lyonnais maintains bank accounts for Le Comite de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestinians (CBSP) • CBSP claims to be a charitable organization • CBSP is part of HAMAS’s fundraising infrastructure and a member of the Union of Good • HAMAS – Islamic Resistance Movement • Union of Good is an org. established by the Muslim Brotherhood and is the fundraising mechanism for HAMAS • Plaintiffs argue that CBSP supports HAMAS • Credit Lyonnais has transferred money to HAMAS through CBSP and assisted in the commission of acts of terrorism • Plaintiffs claim Credit Lyonnais is civilly liable for damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) • Providing “material support and resources” to a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and providing or collecting funds ‘with the knowledge that such funds are to be used” to support terrorism

  4. Discovery Dispute • Plaintiff’s Request • 6-30-10 requested documents. There were issues with request nos. 1-3, 11-13, and 15 • Account records • Communications concerning CBSP • Documents regarding decision to close CBSP’s accounts • Documents regarding the actual closing of CBSP’s account • Documents regarding CBSP’s anti-money laundering efforts • Internal documents related to account procedures • Defendant’s Objections • Violate Article 1 of French Law which prohibits disclosure in connection with a foreign judicial proceeding. Should follow the Hague Convention • Hague Convention – provides internationally agreed upon discovery guidelines • Violation of French laws prohibiting disclosure of information relating to a criminal investigation • Violation of French bank secrecy obligations *CL requested CBSP to release them from its secrecy obligations 2x and received no response * CL requested guidance from the French Government and received no response

  5. eDiscovery Legal Framework • Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 442(1)(c) • Factors to consider when determining whether to compel production of documents located abroad from foreign parties • Factors • Importance of documents to the litigation • Degree of specificity of the request • Whether the information originated in the US • Availability of alternative means of securing the information • Extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests of the US • Competing interests of the nations whose laws are in conflict • Hardship of compliance on the party from who discovery is sought

  6. Analysis • 1 – Requested information is crucial to the litigation • Relevant and important to the claims and defenses • 2 – The discovery requests are narrowly tailored • Focused on vital issues • Ex: whether CL knowingly provided material support to Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations • 3 – Information did not originate in the US • 4 – Availability of alternative methods: plaintiffs not required to seek discovery initially or exclusively through the Hauge Convention • May seek an order compelling discovery

  7. Analysis • 5 – Mutual interests of the US and France is combating terrorism outweigh the French interest regarding the disputed discovery • Both the US and France participate in task forces and treaties that dispute terrorist financing • Both signatories to the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism • Parties cannot refuse a request for mutual legal assistance on the grounds of bank secrecy • 6 – Credit Lyonnais will not face substantial hardship by complying with plaintiffs’ requests • Plaintiffs goals are consistent with the French Government’s objectives • No evidence that CL will be sued in civil court or charged with a crime for compliance • 7 – Credit Lyonnais acted in good faith • Made attempts to contact CBSP and the French Ministry

  8. Issues • Applicability of French Civil and Criminal Laws • Whether French laws apply to documents located in the United States? • French civil and criminal laws are not rendered inapplicable by plaintiff’s possession of documents and information in the United States

  9. CONCLUSION • The factors weight in favor of the plaintiffs • Credit Lyonnais is ordered to produce all documents responsive to plaintiff’s Document Request

  10. Class Discussion • Which do you think is more important: the interest of the court/litigant or the privacy interest? • Currently the US Discovery Rules trump French law and the Hague Convention. Do you think this is fair or should the Hague Convention (or any other treaty) be upheld?

More Related