## Facts

- Utility companies sued Westinghouse in federal court for breach of long-term uranium supply contracts after Westinghouse refused to deliver at contract prices.
- Westinghouse asserted a commercial impracticability defense, alleging uranium price spikes were driven by a producer cartel and related anticompetitive conduct.
- In ancillary proceedings in the District of Utah, Westinghouse served subpoenas duces tecum on Rio Algom Corporation, seeking extensive business records and the deposition of its president.
- Rio Algom moved to quash, asserting many documents were located in Canada and could not be disclosed without violating Canadian atomic-energy secrecy laws adopted during the litigation.
- The Utah district court denied the motion to quash and ordered compliance.
- Rio Algom sought permission from Canadian authorities to produce the materials; Canadian officials refused to authorize disclosure.
- After noncompliance, the Utah district court held Rio Algom and its president in willful civil contempt, imposed a $10,000-per-day coercive fine payable into the court registry, and authorized seizure of Rio Algom property in Utah to satisfy accruing sums.
- Rio Algom appealed the contempt adjudication and sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by holding a subpoenaed party in civil contempt for failing to produce materials when compliance would violate foreign criminal law and authorization to disclose was denied.
2. Whether good-faith efforts to comply and a bona fide risk of foreign prosecution negate a finding of “willful” contempt.
3. Whether severe coercive sanctions were permissible without a comity-based weighing of domestic discovery needs against foreign sovereign interests and the hardship to the responding party.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the civil contempt order and associated sanctions.
- It held the district court abused its discretion by treating Rio Algom’s noncompliance as willful and inexcusable despite a genuine conflict with Canadian secrecy law and demonstrated good-faith efforts to obtain permission to comply.
- It faulted the district court for failing to conduct an adequate analysis of international comity and fairness before imposing heavy coercive measures.

## Legal Principles

- A court enforcing discovery that conflicts with foreign law must weigh domestic adjudicative interests against the foreign sovereign’s interests and the hardship and legal jeopardy imposed on the responding party.
- Noncompliance is not “willful” for civil contempt purposes when the responding party shows good-faith inability to comply due to foreign legal prohibitions and denial of governmental authorization.
- A credible fear of foreign criminal prosecution may constitute a legitimate excuse for noncompliance with a discovery order, limiting the availability of contempt sanctions.
- Civil contempt sanctions must be coercive or compensatory and must not operate as punishment for failure to do what is effectively impossible or requires risking foreign criminal liability.
- When foreign blocking or secrecy laws create a conflict, courts should consider narrower requests and alternative methods for obtaining evidence before resorting to severe sanctions.

## Conclusion

The appellate court set aside a coercive contempt regime imposed for failure to comply with discovery where foreign secrecy law barred production and the responding party acted in good faith, requiring comity-sensitive balancing and realistic consideration of legal impossibility before sanctions may be imposed.


In re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contracts Litig., 563 F.2d 992 (10th Cir. 1977)