On October 16, 2025, the First Department issued a decision in Dorilton Capital Mgt. LLC v. Stilus LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 05744, holding that a court lacked the power to order discovery of a foreign non-party without following the Hague Convention process, explaining:
Supreme Court improperly directed the discovery of de Putron’s electronic devices. First, “when discovery is sought from a nonparty in a foreign jurisdiction that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, application of the Convention is virtually compulsory. An order directing discovery of such a party without complying with the Hague Convention is therefore an improper assertion of power beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. As it is undisputed that de Putron is a nonparty in a foreign jurisdiction that is a signatory to the Hague Convention, Supreme Court lacked the power to direct discovery of his electronic devices without complying with the Hague Convention.
Furthermore, there is no indication that plaintiffs have control over de Putron sufficient to compel him to participate in discovery in this action. Even if de Putron controls plaintiffs, that does not mean plaintiffs control him.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).