In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
480 F. Supp. 1138 (1979)
- Written by Elizabeth Yingling, JD
Facts
During the discovery phase of an antitrust lawsuit instituted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation and the Tennessee Valley Authority (collectively, Westinghouse) (plaintiffs) related to the marketing of uranium, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), Westinghouse moved to compel the production of foreign documents from 10 companies (collectively, the companies) (defendants) that refused production based upon the laws of the countries in which the documents were maintained. In particular, Canada, Australia, and South Africa imposed criminal penalties on persons or entities that produced documents relating to uranium-marketing activities. These laws were enacted to prevent American courts from obtaining documents related to the marketing of uranium. Westinghouse argued that Rule 37(a) required United States law to be applied to determine whether the documents should be produced, while foreign law was relevant only in ascertaining whether sanctions should be imposed for the refusal to produce documents. The companies argued a court should balance the interests of the United States with those of the foreign country to determine which interests predominate.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.