## Facts

- Gucci sued alleged operators of China-based websites accused of selling counterfeit goods bearing Gucci trademarks.
- The court issued a preliminary injunction freezing defendants’ assets and restraining any banks with notice from transferring or concealing defendants’ assets.
- Gucci learned that proceeds of the alleged counterfeit sales were wired to accounts held at Bank of China’s China headquarters.
- Gucci served Rule 45 subpoenas on Bank of China’s New York branch seeking account records tied to defendants to trace and restrain assets.
- Bank of China produced only partial material and resisted further compliance, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and conflicts with Chinese bank-secrecy and privacy laws.
- After an appeal and remand directing reconsideration of personal jurisdiction and international comity, Gucci renewed its motion to compel full compliance.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had specific personal jurisdiction over Bank of China sufficient to compel compliance with the subpoenas consistent with due process.
2. Whether the subpoenas should be limited or denied on international comity grounds due to asserted conflicts with Chinese bank-secrecy law, applying Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 442.

## Decision

- The court held it had specific personal jurisdiction over Bank of China for purposes of enforcing the subpoenas.
- The court found Bank of China had forum contacts related to the discovery sought, including use of New York-based banking channels to process relevant U.S.-dollar transactions.
- Exercising jurisdiction was reasonable given the forum’s interest in enforcing trademark law and the limited incremental burden on a bank operating in New York.
- Applying the Restatement § 442 comity factors, the court concluded the requested records were important, targeted, and not reasonably obtainable through alternatives.
- The court determined the asserted risk of foreign sanctions was insufficiently concrete on the record to outweigh U.S. interests in effective enforcement of injunctions and trademark laws.
- The motion to compel was granted, and Bank of China was ordered to produce the requested account documents notwithstanding its objections.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction may exist over a foreign bank when the bank’s forum-based conduct (including use of New York banking channels) is sufficiently connected to the dispute and the discovery sought.
- Due process requires minimum contacts tied to the matter at issue and a reasonableness assessment considering burden, forum interests, plaintiff’s need, efficiency, and broader policy concerns.
- In cross-border discovery disputes implicating foreign secrecy laws, courts may apply Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 442 and weigh: importance, specificity, origin, alternative means, and comparative national interests.
- Comity does not require denial of discovery when the requests are targeted, alternatives are ineffective, U.S. enforcement interests are strong, and the claimed foreign-law hardship is not shown with concrete evidence.

## Conclusion

The court compelled Bank of China’s compliance with subpoenas seeking defendants’ account records, holding that specific jurisdiction existed based on related New York banking activity and that international comity did not warrant withholding discovery despite asserted Chinese bank-secrecy constraints.


Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 135 F. Supp. 3d 87 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)