In re Application of Babcock Borsig AG
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
583 F. Supp. 2d 233 (2008)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Babcock Borsig AG (BBAG) (plaintiff) filed an action against Babcock Power Inc. (BPI) (defendant), claiming that BPI impermissibility interfered with the sale of BBAG’s assets to Babcock-Hitachi K.K. (Hitachi). BBAG and BPI settled the dispute. Later, BBAG expected that private foreign arbitration proceedings at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) would soon occur between BBAG and Hitachi. In anticipation of this potential arbitration, BBAG filed a motion in federal district court to compel BPI to produce discovery, including documents and witness testimony, for use in the possible future proceedings. Hitachi and BPI objected and argued that even if discovery was permitted by law, the district court should exercise its discretion and deny the motion to compel. Hitachi and BPI also suggested that BBAG was using the discovery request to intentionally skirt ICC evidentiary rules or get information that it failed to obtain in the initial action between BBAG and BPI. BBAG did not provide any evidence to suggest that the ICC was interested in the requested discovery or would accept it if received. Additionally, BBAG had waited almost two years after the conduct that gave rise to the dispute before initiating arbitration at the ICC.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Woodlock, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
