28 U.S.C. § 1781

Transmittal of letter rogatory or request

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Department of State has power, directly, or through suitable channels—(1) to receive a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal, to transmit it to the tribunal, officer, or agency in the United States to whom it is addressed, and to receive and return it after execution; and(2) to receive a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a tribunal in the United States, to transmit it to the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it is addressed, and to receive and return it after execution.(b) This section does not preclude—(1) the transmittal of a letter rogatory or request directly from a foreign or international tribunal to the tribunal, officer, or agency in the United States to whom it is addressed and its return in the same manner; or(2) the transmittal of a letter rogatory or request directly from a tribunal in the United States to the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it is addressed and its return in the same manner.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 948; Pub. L. 88–619, § 8(a), Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 996.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 653 (R.S. § 875; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, § 1, 19 Stat. 241; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 291, 36 Stat. 1167).

Word “officer” was substituted for “commissioner” to obviate uncertainty as to the person to whom the letters or commissioned may be issued.

The third sentence of section 653 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., providing for admission of testimony “so taken and returned” without objection as to the method of return, was omitted as unnecessary. Obviously, if the method designated by Congress is followed, it cannot be objected to.

The last sentence of section 653 of title 26, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to letters rogatory from courts of foreign countries, is incorporated in section 1782 of this title.

The revised section extends the provisions of section 653 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which applied only to cases wherein the United States was a party or was interested, so as to insure a uniform method of taking foreign depositions in all cases.

Words “courts of the United States” were inserted to make certain that the section is addressed to the Federal rather than the State courts as obviously intended by Congress.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1964—Pub. L. 88–619 substituted provisions authorizing the Department of State to transmit a letter rogatory or request by a foreign or international tribunal, or by a tribunal in the United States, to the tribunal, officer or agency in the United States or its foreign or international counterpart, to whom addressed, and to return it after execution, and providing that this section does not preclude direct transmission of letters rogatory or requests between interested tribunals, officers or agencies of foreign, international and of United States origin, for provisions authorizing United States ministers or consuls, whenever a United States court issues letters rogatory or a commission to take a deposition, to receive the executed letters or commissions from foreign courts or officers, endorse them with the place and date of receipt and any change in the deposition, and transmit it to the clerk of the issuing court in the same manner as his official dispatches, in text and “Transmittal of letter rogatory or request” for “Foreign witnesses” in section catchline.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 193 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: Gebr. Eickhoff Maschinenfabrik Und Eisengieberei mbH v. Starcher, 328 S.E.2d 492 (W. Va. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gebr. Eickhoff Maschinenfabrik Und Eisengieberei mbH v. Starcher, 328 S.E.2d 492 (W. Va. 1985). · cites it 16× “7444 [reprinted in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1781 (Supp.1984)] [“Hague Evidence Convention”], to which the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany are both signatories, see 28 U.”

United States v. John Tuma, 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Because Tuma could not subpoena the Canadian CEO, he moved for the issuance of letters rogatory to depose the CEO, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1781 (b)(2). 5 Tuma argued that the CEO possessed information relevant to his defense and that it was discoverable.”

United States v. Hafiz Muhammad Sher Ali Khan, 794 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 1781 (a). Alternatively, 28 U.”

Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 841 F. Supp. 2d 769 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 3× “Rule 28(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1781 (b)(2) authorize federal courts to issue letters rogatory that enable a U.”

Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 105 F.R.D. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). · cites it 6× “Specifically, Lufthansa claims that, inasmuch as it is “a corporation organized and existing under the law of the Federal Republic of Germany,” all discovery requests to it must comply with the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 28…”

Rich v. KIS California, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 254 (M.D.N.C. 1988). · cites it 2× “7444 (hereinafter referred to as “Hague Evidence Convention”), codified at 28 U.S. C. § 1781 Notes. The Convention establishes a method for pretrial discovery by use of the judicial authorities in the contracting states (such as the United States and France).”

United States v. Mejia, Rafael, 448 F.3d 436 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1781 (b)(2) (authorizing “the transmittal of a letter rogatory or request directly from a tribunal in the United States to [a] foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency”).”

Anglo Am. Ins. Grp., P.L.C. v. CalFed Inc., 940 F. Supp. 554 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). · cites it 2× “Regarding the fourth private factor, KPMG argues that the uncertainty and expense of using letters rogatory under the Hague Convention, 28 U.S.C. § 1781 note, to compel witnesses and documents would render proceeding in New York inefficient.”

In Re: Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig. Basf Ag & Basf Coatings Ag, 358 F.3d 288 (3rd Cir. 2004). “2555, reprinted in 28 U.S.C. § 1781 Note. The District Court denied the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the joint motion for a protective order filed by two German corporations, BASF Aktiengesellschaft (BASF AG) and BASF Coatings Aktiengesellschaft (BASF…”

S & S Screw Mach. Co. v. Cosa Corp., 647 F. Supp. 600 (M.D. Tenn. 1986). · cites it 4× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1781 ; Fed.R.Civ.P. 28(b), 29.”

Leibovitch v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 188 F. Supp. 3d 734 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “As to Paribas, Plaintiffs can use Hague Convention discovery procedures, which are outlined in the note following 28 U.S.C. § 1781 , to gain information from the bank’s headquarters.”

Miner v. Atlass, 363 U.S. 641 (1960). · cites it 2× “See note preceding 28 U. S. C. § 1781 . Section 863 permits the taking of the deposition de bene esse of a witness in a pending action, in the following circumstances only: ".”

Show all 193 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.