In re Benton Graphics v. Uddeholm Corp.

Benton Graphics, Inc. (Benton) (plaintiff) was an American corporation that bought and sold steel blades used in the printing industry. Uddeholm Strip Steel, A.B. (USS) (defendant) was a Swedish manufacturer of steel products. Uddeholm Corporation, U.S.A. (UC) (defendant) imported and sold USS’s steel products in the United States. Benton entered into contracts with USS and UC to buy blades, believing that the blades were made from a particular grade of steel. Benton later filed suit for breach of contract and fraud, alleging that USS and UC had misrepresented the grade of steel that was actually sold to Benton and intentionally withheld the fact that the steel sold was materially different from the steel that Benton had thought it was buying. During discovery, Benton served USS and UC with interrogatories and document requests calling for the production of, among other things, information held by any USS employee and testing data of the steel located in Sweden. USS and UC initially raised blanket objections to the discovery requests, arguing generally that they were overbroad and burdensome. Benton motioned the court to compel USS and UC to comply with the discovery requests. USS and UC opposed the motion on the ground that the requests were procedurally improper because the discovery had not been sought in accordance with the rules of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Evidence Convention) rules.