what Information was provided by the Chinese government? what did tiffany hope f

Question

what Information was provided by the Chinese government?
what did tiffany hope for?
why will the court not issue subpoenas to the chinese government?

unahestionably produced relevant, responsive documents Second, he production has not been so narow that resort to the Convention can fairly be deseribe The account holders' identities and addresses have been identified as well as transaction histori Plaintifis' argument that additional documents concerning transfers into and out of the accounts will lead to a fuller understanding of the trademark counterfeiting operation is extremely speculative. Finally, the fact that the MOJ China takes a narrower view concerning the appropriate scope of pretrial discovery does not render the Hague Convention process futile. The high cost of discovery in federal litigation is well known, and the fact that another sovereign chooses to take a more restrictive view of the appropriate scope of pretrial discovery is not unreasonable. In addition, as noted above, China is not unique in reserving its right to limit production in response to a Hague Convention request to documents that it considers to bear a direct and close connection with the litigation; many other countries have made the same reservation. Questions I. What information was provided by the Chinese government? 2. What did Tiffany hope for? 3. Why will the court not issue subpoenas to the Chinese government?

Explanation / Answer

1. The Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China (“MOJ”) responded by producing some of the documents requested. For each of the Banks, the MOJ produced account opening documents (including the government identification card of the account holder), written confirmation of certain transfers into the accounts and a list of transfers out of the accounts. With respect to CMB, the records indicate that all funds in the account were withdrawn through cash transactions at either an ATM or through a teller. BOC and CMB each produced documents concerning a single account; ICBC produced documents for three accounts.

2. Tiffany was hoping to find the defendants who have any additional accounts at the Banks and detailed wire transfer records regarding the deposits into and withdrawals from the CMB and ICBC accounts.

3. The court will not issue subpoenas to the Chinese government because the Banks, through the MOJ, had undeniably produced relevant, responsive documents. Also because the account holders' identities and addresses had been identified; the transaction histories and the scope of the Banks' production were not so accurate, hence that resort to the convention was basically pointless. Plaintiffs' argument that additional documents concerning transfers in and out of the accounts will lead to a better understanding of the trademark counterfeiting operation was exceedingly hypothetical.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.