20/4/2010
Page   1
PROF.  CRAIG CHARLES BELES
Seattle, Washington, USA

20/4/2010
2
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRCP) –
RULE 4(f): Service Upon Individuals in a Foreign Country.  Unless otherwise provided by federal
law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an
infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in a place not within any judicial  district of
the United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as the [Hague
Service Convention]; or
(2) if there is no [applicable convention]:
(A) in the manner prescribed by the law of the foreign country . . . ; or
(B) as directed by the foreign authority in response to a [letter rogatory]; or
(C) unless prohibited by law of the foreign country, by
(i) [personal delivery]; or
(ii) [mail] addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement as directed by the court.

20/4/2010
3
61 Members:  United States – 1969;  Czech Republic – 1993
Creates “uniform” faster method than old Letters Rogatory
Key:  “Each Contracting State shall designate a Central Authority which will undertake to receive
requests for service coming from other Contracting States and to proceed in conformity with the
provisions of Articles 3 to 6.”
U.S. Central Authority: Dept. of Justice Civil Div. in Wash D.C.
Czech Central Authority: Ministry of Justice, Prague

20/4/2010
4
CENTRAL AUTHORITY HAS THREE OPTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5:
1.In the Same Manner as the Foreign Country Authorizes for Domestic Service
2.In the Manner Specified by Requesting Party Not in Violation of Foreign Law
3. Voluntary Acceptance by Recipient
OTHER APPROVED OPTIONS OUTSIDE CENTRAL AUTHORITY PROCEDURE:
Arts 8 & 9:  Through Use of Diplomatic and Counselor Agents  (But See RUDs)
Art 10 (a):  Through Sending by Mail  (But See RUD)
Art 10(b) & (c):  Through Use of Judicial Officers  (But See RUDs)
Art 19:  Other Methods Authorized by Domestic Law of Foreign State
REMEMBER: HSC is “Exclusive” Method Between Contracting Parties

20/4/2010
5
FRCP 26(b) DISCOVERY SCOPE and LIMITS:
(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant
to the claim or defense of any party . . . .  Relevant information need not be admissible at the
trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. . . .
AUTHORIZED DISCOVERY DEVICES:
Requests for Production of Documents & Things & Entry Upon Land
Written Interrogatories
Depositions Upon Oral Examination
Requests for Admissions

20/4/2010
6
IF U.S. COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN PARTY, IT HAS POWER TO ORDER PARTY TO PRODUCE
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WITHIN THEIR POSSESSION, CUSTODY AND CONTROL WHEREVER THEY ARE LOCATED (even
when Diplomatic Objection or Blocking Rule).
FAILURE TO PRODUCE CAN RESULT IN SANCTIONS THAT RANGE FROM MONETARY “TERMS” TO DISMISSAL OF CASE.
FOREIGN DEPOSITIONS – FRCP 28 (b) OR Hague Evidence Convention
1970 HEC – 50 Members: United States 1972; Czech Republic 1993
Streamlined “Letter of Request” through Central Authority

20/4/2010
7
HEC IS NORMALLY NOT THE BEST METHOD
28 USC § 1782 is Better Because it Provides that:
1.  If you are an “interested person” in a “foreign proceeding” and
2. The person from whom evidence is sought is in the District of the Court where the discovery
application is made,
3. You may obtain both Documentary and Testimonial evidence directly through Order of the District
Court without asking foreign tribunal for order first (as in HEC).

20/4/2010
8
HEC HAS BEEN LARGELY REPLACED BY EC REG 1206/2001 ON COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COURTS OF THE MEMBER
STATES IN TAKING EVIDENCE IN CIVIL OR COMMERICAL MATTERS.
Council Reg Permits Direct Communication Between Courts or Direct Taking of Evidence by the
Requesting Court Without Time-Consuming Method of Sending Letters Rogatory Through Diplomatic
Channels.
Excellent Website With Standardized Request Forms
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/te_information_en.htm
Permits State of the Art Forms of Evidence Gathering

20/4/2010
9
DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS:
1)CONSENSUAL/VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION, PROCEDURE & LAW
2)RESULTS IN FINAL BINDING AWARD CAPABLE OF JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT
3)  NEUTRAL – NONGOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKERS
DISTINGUISH OTHER FORMS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
E.G., MEDIATION, EXPERT INTERVENTION, CONCILIATION

20/4/2010
10
1.  PRIVACY/CONFIDENTIALITY
2.  CHOICE OF “JUDGE”
3.  NEUTRALITY
4.  FLEXIBILITY
5.  LIMITED “DISCOVERY”
6.  FINALITY
7.  ENFORCEABILITY
8.  EXPENSE -  SAVING
9.  TIME – SAVING
10.RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE

20/4/2010
11
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES – NEW YORK CONVENTION
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PRACTICE
NATIONAL LAWS – SUB & PROC
ARBITRATION RULES
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

20/4/2010
12
REQUIRES MEMBER STATES TO DO THREE MAJOR THINGS:
1)ART II (1) – RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS,
WITH EXCEPTIONS.
2) ART II (3) – DECLINE JURISDICTION AND REFER PARTIES WITH VALID ARB AGREEMENT, TO ARBITRATION.
3)ART III & V – RECOGNIZE & ENFORCE ARBITRATION AWARDS,
WITH EXCEPTIONS