Request, which must provide specific information regarding the lawsuit and theinformation sought to be discovered, the signatory state “‘shall [then] apply theappropriate measure of compulsion’ as is customary ‘for the execution of orders issuedby the authorities of its own country.’”
Individuals to whom a Letter of Request isdirected have the right to refuse to give evidence to the extent they are protected by aprivilege under either the law of the State of execution or the State of origin.
“‘A party which seeks the application of the Hague [Evidence] Conventionprocedures rather than the Federal Rules [of Civil Procedure] bears the burden ofpersuading the trial court’ of the necessity of proceeding pursuant to the HagueEvidence Convention.”
“That burden is not great, however, since the ‘Conventionprocedures are available whenever they will facilitate the gathering of evidence by themeans authorized in the Convention.’”
In this case, both parties agree that Letters ofRequest should be used.
The parties’ briefing makes clear that the inventors anddeclarants subject to the defendants’ motion are not parties to the lawsuit, have notvoluntarily subjected themselves to discovery, are citizens of either Norway or Sweden,and are not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this court. Under these
or agent after permission is obtained from the foreign state, and (3) by a privatecommissioner duly appointed by the foreign state.
Tulip Computers Int’l B.V.
, 254 F. Supp 2d at 472 (citation omitted).
(citing Hague Evidence Convention, Art. 3, 10).
(citing Hague Evidence Convention, Art. 11).
at 474 (quoting
Valois of Am., Inc. v. Risdon Corp.
, 183 F.R.D. 344, 346 (D. Conn. 1997))(alterations in original).
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale
, 482 U.S. at 541).
C.A. No. 09-286, D.I. 43 at 5 (“Pronova does not oppose the use of the Hague Conventionas a means for seeking information from the listed individuals.”); C.A. No. 09-304, D.I. 55 at 5 (same); C.A.No. 09-305, D.I. 42 at 5 (same).