## Facts

- Valois of America, Inc. sued Risdon Corporation seeking declarations of patent invalidity and noninfringement, and alleging patent misuse and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
- Risdon counterclaimed and filed a third-party complaint against Valois S.A. (a French entity), alleging infringement and seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- During discovery, Risdon served extensive written discovery on Valois S.A., totaling 96 items.
- Valois S.A. moved for a protective order requiring that discovery directed to it proceed exclusively under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.
- Risdon opposed, arguing discovery should proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether a French third-party defendant was entitled to an order requiring that all discovery be taken exclusively through Hague Evidence Convention procedures rather than under the Federal Rules.
2. What showing a foreign party must make to limit or channel discovery based on foreign sovereign interests and foreign “blocking” laws.

## Decision

- The court denied Valois S.A.’s motion for a protective order without prejudice.
- The court declined to require exclusive use of the Hague Evidence Convention and permitted discovery to proceed under the Federal Rules at that stage.
- The court left open the possibility of renewed, more targeted relief if later developments showed a concrete conflict with French law or a specific undue burden.

## Legal Principles

- The Hague Evidence Convention is permissive, not mandatory; it does not automatically displace the Federal Rules in federal litigation involving foreign parties.
- Courts must conduct a case-specific comity analysis rather than categorically requiring Hague Convention procedures whenever discovery implicates a signatory nation.
- Foreign blocking statutes are relevant to comity but are not controlling; they are weighed against the needs of U.S. discovery and case management.
- The moving party bears the burden to show specific, non-speculative hardship or a genuine legal conflict; generalized references to foreign law and policy are insufficient.
- Concerns about breadth, burden, and protections can be handled through targeted discovery management tools (objections, narrowing, phased discovery, tailored protective orders) rather than an across-the-board shift to Hague procedures.

## Conclusion

The court refused to mandate Hague Convention-only discovery from a French party based on general comity and blocking-statute arguments, holding that Federal Rules discovery remained available absent a concrete, particularized showing of conflict or hardship, while allowing a later renewed request if specific problems emerged.


Valois of Am., Inc. v. Risdon Corp., 183 F.R.D. 344 (D. Conn. 1997)