On January 22, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in EPAC Tech. LTD v. Interforum S.A., 2026 NY Slip Op. 00308, holding that the French blocking statute did not bar discovery in a New York action, explaining:
The motion court properly denied defendants’ request for a broad protective order and the appointment of a commissioner under article 17 of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters based on the French blocking statute. The French blocking statute is a criminal statute forbidding French nationals from engaging in discovery under the rules of a foreign judicial system without using the procedures prescribed by the Hague Convention.
In the landmark decision of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v United States Dist. Ct. (482 US 522 [1987]), the Supreme Court ruled that a broad protective order requiring discovery to proceed solely under the Hague Convention due to the French blocking statute had been correctly refused, while acknowledging the possibility that employing Convention procedures for some aspects of the discovery process might be appropriate under certain circumstances. Since Aerospatiale was decided, federal courts have routinely ordered discovery from parties located in France without requiring compliance with the Hague Convention, notwithstanding the French blocking statute. The majority of courts that have examined the issue have held that France has little interest in the enforcement of its [b]locking statute. Historically, the blocking statute has not subjected litigants to a realistic risk of prosecution, and cannot be construed as a law intended to universally govern the conduct of litigation within the jurisdiction of a United States court.
Defendants argue that the above precedent must be considered in light of recent developments — namely, the 2022 supplemental decree and executive order relating to the French blocking statute, and correspondence from the Strategic Information and Economic Security Service (SISSE). However, these developments do not warrant a departure from established precedent nor the implementation of broad sweeping relief.
The 2022 supplemental decree and executive order provide for enhanced communication between the French authorities and the affected parties. They require French companies to report foreign discovery requests covered by the blocking statute without delay to SISSE, and in response, SISSE must promptly provide an opinion as to whether the requested information is covered by the blocking statute. These amendments clarify procedural obligations, but do not substantively increase the risk of prosecution or alter the statute’s enforcement framework. Accordingly, defendants’ assertion that the amendments necessitate broad protective relief is without merit.
Furthermore, although specific protective measures may be appropriate under certain circumstance, defendants have failed to prove the need for a blanket protective order requiring all party discovery to proceed under the Hague Convention and appointment of an article 17 Commissioner as they have requested. The Aerospatiale Court identified five factors that are relevant to the comity analysis: (1) the importance of the requested information to the litigation; (2) the specificity of the requests; (3) whether the information originated in the U.S.; (4) whether there are “alternative means of securing the information”; and (5) the respective national interests involved. However, the balance of national interests has been identified as the most important factor.
France has historically had little interest in the enforcement of its blocking statute, and we find that the 2022 supplemental decree and executive order do not prove otherwise, as further evidenced by the SISSE letters. The letters generally directed defendants to apply Hague Convention procedures because the information requested by the Supreme Court of the State of New York is likely to constitute evidence in ongoing legal proceedings. However, the SISSE letters fail to identify sovereign interests in specific kinds of material, and are not particularized in terms and enforcement, and thus do not compel the conclusion that Hague Convention procedures must be used here, for all defendants, for all discovery. In contrast, the United States has an obvious interest in the application of its procedural rules to discovery in litigation pending in its courts. Moreover, the parties contractually agreed to litigate disputes in New York, and defendants cannot now invoke foreign law to circumvent that agreement. In short, the fifth factor — namely, the respective national interests — weighs heavily in favor of discovery proceeding without regard to the Hague Convention.
The remaining comity factors, except as discussed below, weigh against defendants’ position. While much of the discovery materials may have originated in France, defendants concede that some of the requested documents are relevant to the litigation. Their objections to the breadth of the requests can be addressed through standard discovery procedures in New York courts. Furthermore, plaintiff has raised legitimate concerns regarding the cost, delay, and inefficiency of Hague Convention procedures, which further supports denial of the motion.
Given that the subject of the dispute involves printing services at a facility in France for French book publishing companies, the final factor of whether the information requested originated in the United States weighs in defendants’ favor. However, as it is the only factor clearly in defendants’ favor, defendants have failed to prove that the interests of comity warrant a broad protective order and the appointment of a commissioner in this case and thus, the motion was properly denied.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).