## Facts

- Direct purchasers filed federal antitrust class actions alleging a worldwide conspiracy among vitamin manufacturers to fix prices.
- The actions were centralized in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Several foreign defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court denied the motions without prejudice and permitted limited jurisdictional discovery, including inquiry under state long-arm theories and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).
- Plaintiffs served Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices, document requests, and interrogatories limited to personal-jurisdiction issues.
- Foreign defendants largely refused to provide discovery, arguing that discovery aimed abroad had to proceed through the Hague Evidence Convention rather than under the Federal Rules.
- A Special Master recommended permitting jurisdictional discovery under the Federal Rules with narrowed requests, including discovery through foreign parent companies of U.S. subsidiaries and from certain former employees, and also recommended allowing a refined “Interrogatory No. 2.”
- Foreign defendants filed objections under Rule 53 to the Special Master’s recommendations.

## Issues

1. Whether jurisdictional discovery directed to foreign defendants must proceed exclusively through the Hague Evidence Convention, or may be ordered under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether, and to what extent, plaintiffs’ jurisdictional discovery should be narrowed and may reach information via foreign parent corporations and certain former employees.
3. Whether Interrogatory No. 2 (as refined by the Special Master) was proper or warranted a protective order.

## Decision

- The court adopted the recommendation that jurisdictional discovery proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than exclusively through the Hague Evidence Convention.
- The court adopted the recommendations to narrow plaintiffs’ jurisdictional requests and to allow discovery through foreign parent corporations of domestic subsidiaries and from certain former employees to develop jurisdictional facts.
- The court rejected the recommendation approving Interrogatory No. 2, found it wholly improper even as refined, and granted protective orders permitting defendants to refuse to answer it.

## Legal Principles

- The Hague Evidence Convention is not the exclusive or mandatory mechanism for obtaining evidence abroad in federal litigation; courts may order discovery under the Federal Rules after considering comity concerns.
- Jurisdictional discovery may be permitted where necessary to test personal-jurisdiction theories, but it should be tailored to jurisdictional questions and limited to reduce burden on foreign parties.
- Protective orders are appropriate to prevent discovery requests that exceed jurisdictional scope or impose unjustified burden, even in early, jurisdiction-focused discovery.

## Conclusion

In managing jurisdictional discovery in a multinational antitrust MDL, the court permitted discovery under the Federal Rules (subject to narrowing and targeted sources such as foreign parents and former employees) while issuing a protective order barring an interrogatory it deemed improper for jurisdictional discovery.


In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 120 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2000)