## Facts

- Reinsurance Company of America, Inc. (RCA), an Illinois reinsurer, entered two quota share retrocession agreements effective October 1, 1977, and January 1, 1980, under which Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat (ADAS), a Romanian state-owned insurer, participated as retrocessionaire on specified risks.
- The agreements were executed by RCA and CJV Associates, which acted as ADAS’s agent.
- RCA sued ADAS for breach of the agreements in Illinois state court in 1983; ADAS removed to federal court and asserted multiple affirmative defenses, including reliance on a Romanian judgment declaring the contracts void.
- The district court denied ADAS’s dismissal motion based on the Romanian judgment and granted RCA partial summary judgment on liability; later, after further proceedings, the court entered final summary judgment for RCA with monetary damages.
- After final judgment, ADAS moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate the judgment, claiming its U.S. counsel’s gross negligence in discovery and trial preparation constituted “extraordinary circumstances.”
- Separately, RCA served post-judgment interrogatories seeking information about ADAS’s insurance contracts with companies in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom to aid collection; the requested information was located in Romania.
- ADAS objected that Romanian secrecy laws treated the information as state secrets and that disclosure could trigger criminal penalties.
- The district court denied ADAS’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and denied RCA’s motion to compel post-judgment interrogatory answers.
- ADAS appealed the Rule 60(b)(6) denial, and RCA cross-appealed the discovery ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief from judgment based on alleged gross negligence by ADAS’s counsel.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion to compel post-judgment interrogatory answers where compliance purportedly violated Romanian secrecy laws, considering principles of international comity.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of ADAS’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
- The court held that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is an extraordinary remedy requiring exceptional circumstances, and the district court acted within its discretion in refusing to reopen the judgment.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that “gross negligence” by counsel, standing alone, requires vacatur; it emphasized that litigants are generally bound by their chosen counsel’s acts and omissions.
- The court concluded ADAS failed to show sufficient diligence in supervising or replacing counsel despite extended litigation and warning signs.
- The Seventh Circuit also affirmed the denial of RCA’s motion to compel post-judgment interrogatories.
- Applying a comity-based balancing analysis, the court held Romania’s sovereign interest in enforcing secrecy laws—and the risk of foreign criminal sanctions—outweighed RCA’s interest in the requested discovery, particularly given alternative collection avenues.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(6) provides equitable relief only in exceptional circumstances; appellate review of its denial is for abuse of discretion.
- Attorney negligence, even when characterized as gross, does not automatically justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief when the client had the ability and responsibility to monitor the litigation and protect its interests.
- In cross-border discovery disputes implicating foreign secrecy or blocking laws, courts may balance competing interests under international comity, considering factors such as:
  - the importance and specificity of the information sought,
  - whether the information is located abroad,
  - the availability of alternative means to obtain the information, and
  - the likelihood and seriousness of foreign criminal or sovereign harms from compelled disclosure.
- The prospect that compliance would expose a party to foreign criminal liability is a substantial comity consideration that can justify limiting post-judgment discovery.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld the finality of a federal money judgment by affirming denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief where the client did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or diligence beyond blaming counsel’s poor performance, and it affirmed denial of post-judgment discovery where international comity and the risk of Romanian criminal sanctions outweighed the creditor’s enforcement interests.


Reinsurance Co. of Am., Inc. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat, 902 F.2d 1275 (7th Cir. 1990)