## Facts

- Benton Graphics, Inc., a New Jersey manufacturer of steel “doctor blades,” bought steel from Swedish Uddeholm entities through a U.S. affiliate between 1979 and 1985.
- Benton alleged defendants misrepresented the grade of steel supplied and concealed that the steel delivered differed materially from what was represented.
- The dispute centered on the composition, quality, and testing of the steel; relevant documents and test data were located in Sweden.
- Benton asserted claims including fraud and breach of contract (and related civil RICO theories).
- During discovery, Benton served interrogatories and document requests seeking information and test data in the possession of employees of the Swedish entity and documents located abroad.
- Defendants responded with broad objections (e.g., overbreadth and burden) and argued discovery should proceed via the Hague Evidence Convention rather than under the Federal Rules.
- The court deferred ruling pending the Supreme Court’s decision in *Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court*, then applied that framework to Benton’s motion to compel.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should require the parties to use Hague Evidence Convention procedures for discovery located in Sweden rather than order discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Which party bears the burden of showing that Hague Evidence Convention procedures should be used in lieu of discovery under the Federal Rules.
3. Whether generalized assertions of foreign sovereign interests and blanket burden objections are sufficient to displace ordinary federal discovery mechanisms.

## Decision

- The court granted Benton’s motion to compel discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The court declined to require Hague Evidence Convention procedures on the record presented.
- The court held that the party advocating Hague procedures bears the burden to show case-specific reasons supporting that route.
- The court found defendants’ generalized claims of overbreadth, burden, and Swedish sovereign interests insufficient absent request-by-request showings.
- The court allowed defendants to assert specific objections to particular interrogatories or document requests within ten days, with Benton permitted to respond within ten days after objections were filed.

## Legal Principles

- The Hague Evidence Convention is not mandatory in U.S. civil discovery; it is an optional mechanism that may be considered in a case-specific comity analysis.
- Discovery ordinarily proceeds under the Federal Rules unless the party seeking Hague procedures demonstrates concrete, case-specific reasons (such as a particularized foreign sovereign conflict or specific undue burdens) warranting departure.
- Blanket objections and generalized references to foreign sovereign interests do not justify replacing Federal Rules discovery; objections must be tied to specific requests.
- Courts may manage cross-border discovery by tailoring scope and timing through standard Federal Rules tools (specific objections, narrowing, protective management) rather than defaulting to Hague procedures.

## Conclusion

The court compelled responses to interrogatories and production of documents under the Federal Rules, holding that Hague Evidence Convention procedures are optional and must be justified by the party seeking them through specific, case-based showings rather than generalized objections or broad invocations of foreign sovereign interests.


Benton Graphics, Inc. v. Uddeholm Corp., 118 F.R.D. 386 (D.N.J. 1987)