On May 7, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in Dorilton Capital Mgt. LLC v. Stilus LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 02875, holding that a plaintiff had met the high burden of justifying the issuance of a Hague Convention letter request, explaining:
When discovery is sought from a nonparty in a foreign jurisdiction that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, application of the Convention is virtually compulsory. Under the Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, the domestic court seeking discovery from a nonparty such as de Putron may submit a Letter of Request to the appropriate foreign jurisdiction. Thus, in Dorilton I, we held that the court lacked the power to direct discovery of de Putron’s electronic devices without complying with the Hague Convention.
Nevertheless, a case-specific balancing of sovereign and party interests is required before authorizing international discovery pursuant to the Hague Convention. To compel the production of discovery from international entities, the movant must establish that the information sought is crucial to the resolution of a key issue in the litigation.
Here, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the requested deposition testimony was necessary to address a crucial issue in this case, and that a Letter of Request was therefore appropriate. The record contains substantial evidence that de Putron was directly and intimately involved in the management of plaintiffs, appeared to have been displeased with defendants’ performance in terms of the fan base they were engaging, and possibly was involved in the termination of plaintiffs’ contracts with defendants that forms the basis of this dispute. The record, therefore, establishes that his testimony is directly relevant and material to the issue of why the contracts were terminated. The record also establishes that evidence of de Putron’s motives, if any, for seeking to have plaintiffs terminate the contracts has not been readily obtainable through other means. Despite plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary, the information sought in defendants’ proposed Letter of Request is sufficiently targeted to key issues in this litigation that are within his knowledge and that only he may be in a position to answer.not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
The post Plaintiff Meets High Burden Justifying Issuance of Hague Convention Letter Request appeared first on Lundin PLLC.