6 ms·

See: International comity [1] (more like comedy, as my law school professor joked) My guess is that since this is a NZ company, that country's laws should appl

See: International comity [1] (more like comedy, as my law school professor joked) My guess is that since this is a NZ company, that country's laws should apply, but Glassdoor being a US entity necessitates a US court applying (or enforcing) the law or judgment of NZ. For whatever strategic reason, their legal team sought a judgement in the US first. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity More info for anyone interested: https://columbialawreview.org/content/international-comity-in-american-law/ https://columbialawreview.org/content/international-comity-i...

NohatCoder 4y ago
That is a comedy for sure. The particular ruling seems to run straight against the Californian libel tourism law of 2010, at the very least in spirit.
- vanattab 4y ago
  Definitely not a lawyer, but I would think the counter argument might be their is no judgment from New Zealand yet so the libel tourism law would not apply. For example if after this guy is unmasked it turns out he is living in the USA and is found guilty in NZ but would not have been guilty in the USA then they would not order extradite/use us banking system to enforce the ruling. However if the he would have been found guilty in the U.S. (say he is the CEO of a competing company who never even worked for the company.) then the US would enforce the NZ judgment. It least that is my best guess
- funac 4y ago
  agreed, but: in the ruling, the judge cites a separate law that encourages US courts to cooperate with foreign courts for the purposes of information finding: >Glassdoor is headquartered in this district, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), a district court can order persons within the district to produce discovery "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal." >Given Glassdoor's focus on the merits of Zuru's defamation claim, first this must be noted: § 1782(a), the governing statute, doesn't require the Court to evaluate the merits of Zuru's claim before ordering Glassdoor to produce discovery in furtherance of it. >Congress enacted § 1782(a) "to provide federal-court assistance in gathering evidence for use in foreign tribunals." Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004). The statute is generous and reflects a hope that if federal courts assist with foreign litigation, foreign courts will do the same when the tables are turned. See ZF Auto. US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 142 S. Ct. 2078, 2088 (2022) ("[T]he animating purpose of § 1782 is comity: Permitting federal courts to assist foreign and international governmental bodies promotes respect for foreign governments and encourages reciprocal assistance.").
  - nilsbunger 4y ago
    This makes sense, and is in fact a US law. So the judge doesn't have to interpret NZ law, just rule that there's a valid reason for a "discovery" request.

NohatCoder 4y ago

That is a comedy for sure. The particular ruling seems to run straight against the Californian libel tourism law of 2010, at the very least in spirit.

vanattab 4y ago
Definitely not a lawyer, but I would think the counter argument might be their is no judgment from New Zealand yet so the libel tourism law would not apply. For example if after this guy is unmasked it turns out he is living in the USA and is found guilty in NZ but would not have been guilty in the USA then they would not order extradite/use us banking system to enforce the ruling. However if the he would have been found guilty in the U.S. (say he is the CEO of a competing company who never even worked for the company.) then the US would enforce the NZ judgment. It least that is my best guess
funac 4y ago
agreed, but: in the ruling, the judge cites a separate law that encourages US courts to cooperate with foreign courts for the purposes of information finding: >Glassdoor is headquartered in this district, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), a district court can order persons within the district to produce discovery "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal." >Given Glassdoor's focus on the merits of Zuru's defamation claim, first this must be noted: § 1782(a), the governing statute, doesn't require the Court to evaluate the merits of Zuru's claim before ordering Glassdoor to produce discovery in furtherance of it. >Congress enacted § 1782(a) "to provide federal-court assistance in gathering evidence for use in foreign tribunals." Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004). The statute is generous and reflects a hope that if federal courts assist with foreign litigation, foreign courts will do the same when the tables are turned. See ZF Auto. US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 142 S. Ct. 2078, 2088 (2022) ("[T]he animating purpose of § 1782 is comity: Permitting federal courts to assist foreign and international governmental bodies promotes respect for foreign governments and encourages reciprocal assistance.").
- nilsbunger 4y ago
  This makes sense, and is in fact a US law. So the judge doesn't have to interpret NZ law, just rule that there's a valid reason for a "discovery" request.