Page 8 - Litigation

S8 | MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2015 | Litigation | NYLJ.COM
BY JEFF HAMMEL, BLAKE DENTON AND MAX BALLOU
I t is increasingly common for companies to be subject to lawsuits in multiple countries involving similar underly-
ing facts, brought by different plaintiffs. For example, companies may be alleged to have engaged in malfeasance abroad, and subject to lawsuits in both the United States by a U.S.-based plaintiff and the countr y in which the alleged conduct occurred by a plaintiff in that country.
One aspect of such multinational litiga- tion is the impact that discovery in one jurisdiction can have on the proceed- ings in another. Discovery in U.S. courts is often broader than in foreign courts, where applicable rules on discovery limit parties’ ability to obtain documents and other evidence. In some cases, however, foreign plaintiffs have successfully been able to obtain access to discovery pro- duced in related U.S. proceedings by fil- ing motions to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). This article discusses such motions to intervene in order to gain access to U.S. discovery and provides
strategic guidance for dealing with such motions.
Motions to Intervene to Gain Access
Motions for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), which provides that a
ery, courts have permitted such motions to be used for that purpose. Indeed, one court has observed that “every circuit court that has considered the question has come to the conclusion” that motions for intervention can be used to allow
JEFF HAMMEL is a partner at Latham & Wat- kins in New York, where he is co-chair of the securities litigation and professional liability practice. BLAKE DENTON and MAX BALLOU are litigation associates at the firm. Latham rep- resented Silvercorp Metals in ‘In re Silvercorp Metals’ cited herein.
Handling Foreign Plaintiffs’ Requests For Access to U.S. Discovery
cour t may
who “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact,” are typically used to allow a party to join an existing litigation in order to bring related claims. Although the rule does not on its face appear intended to facilitate third-party discov-
allow “anyone” to
inter vene