Brief this text please (Intro, body, conclu). Just a few notes please. Thank you. My question is simple, I don't find what information are missing. Please precise.

RENFIELD CORP. v. E. REMY MARTIN & CO., S.A. 443 Cite as 98 F.R.D. 442 (1982) mington, Del., Elliot S. Kaplan, James L. A. DOCUMENTS LOCATED IN THE Harlow, Rita A. Mcconnell, Robins, Zelle, OFFICES OF REMY S.A. IN Larson & Kaplan, Minneapolis, Minn., for FRANCE defendants Glenmore Distilleries Co. and The parties are not in disagreement that Foreign Vintages, Inc. the Hague Evidence Convention governs discovery of any of the documents located MEMORANDUM OPINION in France; they are in disagreement, how- ever, as to the meaning of the relevant STAPLETON, District Judge: provisions of that Convention. This is an antitrust action brought by Two provisions are pertinent. Article plaintiffs Renfield Corporation and Ren- 21(e) provides that: field Importers ("Renfield") against E. A person requested to give evidence may Remy Martin & Co., S.A. ("Remy S.A."), invoke the privileges and duties to refuse Remy Martin Amerique, Inc. ("Remy Ame- to give the evidence contained in Article rique"), and other defendants. Renfield 11. has moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2) for Article 11, in turn, provides that: an order compelling production of certain The person concerned may refuse to give documents withheld by the Remy defend- evidence insofar as he has a privilege or ants on the ground of attorney-client privi- duty to refuse to give the evidence-(a) lege. In the alternative, Renfield seeks an under the law of the State of execution; in camera inspection of these documents by or (b) under the law of the State of the Court to determine on a document-by- origin . . document basis whether they are protected Defendants read these provisions to as- by the attorney-client privilege. sure that a witness will have the benefit not only of privileges recognized by the forum State. but also privileges recognized by the I. AVAILABILITY OF THE ATTOR- State where the letters are executed.? NEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. [1] Renfield reads them to permit a wit- The communications at issue are 119 doc- ness to assert only a privilege of the State uments that reflect communications be- of origin or State of execution which is tween officials of both Remy defendants otherwise applicable under conflict of laws and employees of Remy S.A. identified as principles. While there is room for argu- its French "in-house counsel." Renfield ment. I find Renfield's reading of the lan- challenges Remy's assertion of the attor- guage employed less plausible than that of ney-client privilege on the basis that the defendants'. Moreover, I believe defend- privilege does not apply to communications ant's interpretation is more compatible with with French "in-house counsel." I shall the limited "legislative history" of the Con- consider separately the documents located vention currently available to me. Both the in the offices of Remy S.A. in France and United States and France in their answers those located in the New York offices of to Question 10 of the "Questionnaire on the Remy Amerique. Taking of Evidence Abroad" made in 1. There are four individuals so identified: Guill- What privileges are available to witnesses aume d'Avont, Thibaud de Chasteigner. Pierre appearing under a letter rogatory- de Viel-Castel, and Alain Raab. a only those of the law of the requested State? 2. Article 11 goes on to indicate that a signatory b only those of the law of the requesting of the Convention may elect to afford the wit- State? ness the benefit of the privileges of other juris- c each privilege decreed either by the law of dictions, such as the privilege recognized by the requested State or by that of the request- the witness's domicile. ing State? d only those decreed by both legislations 3. Question 10 reads: cumulatively?444 98 FEDERAL RULES DECISIONS preparation for the Hague Convention vide legal advice but may not appear in evinced their intent that the treaty be a court and may only be employed by, or privilege creating, rather than privilege associated with, other "conseils juridiques." limiting, law. Thus, I conclude that if a (Cournot 176, 7; Affid. of Goldman 1135, privilege is recognized by either French or 39, Appendix E to d.b.). Thus, an individu- United States law, the defendants may in- al who is employed by a corporation is. not voke it. permitted by law to be on the list of "ayo- [2] For the purpose of this motion, I cats" or "conseils juridiques." Neverthe- assume that French law would not grant a less, these individuals are not prohibited privilege to refuse to disclose these docu- ' from giving legal advice. ments. Therefore, I must consider whether Because there is no clear French equiva- United States law provides such a privilege. lent to the American "bar," in this context I conclude that it does. Preliminarily, it is membership in a "bar" cannot be the rele- clear that the communications were intend- vant criterion for whether the attorney- ed and reasonably expected to be confiden client privilege is available. Rather, the tial. Thus, the only issue of any substance requirement is a functional one of whether is whether the privilege is available where the individual is competent to render legal the attorney is a French "in-house counsel." advice and is permitted by law to do so. Plaintiffs have urged that because French French "in-house counsel" certainly meet "in-house counsel" are not members of a this test; like their American counterparts, bar, the privilege is unavailable. In order they have legal training and are employed to decide this, it is necessary to have some understanding of the structure of the to give legal advice to corporate officials on French legal profession. matters of legal significance to the corpora- tion.6 The organization of the French legal pro- fession is unlike that in the United States. B. DOCUMENTS IN THE NEW YORK In France, there are several categories OFFICE OF REMY AMERIQUE. within the practicing legal profession and each category performs a different function [3] The Hague Evidence Convention is that, in the United States, would all be not applicable to documents located in the performed by an American lawyer (Affid. United States. Therefore, I must apply of Cournot 15, Appendix D to p.b.). For choice-of-law principles to determine example, the "avocat" provides legal advice whether United States or French privilege to clients and appears in court but may not law applies. be employed by any person or organization. There is no dispute that the choice-of-law The "conseil juridique" is allowed to pro- standard is that the applicable law is that 4. Under Renfield's reading. the only effect of issues in this context would be to defeat what I this provision of Article 11 is to limit the privi- believe to be the intent of the Hague Evidence leges otherwise available to the witness, i.e. to Convention-that a witness shall not be limited restrict otherwise applicable privileges to those to the attorney-client privilege law of the juris- recognized by the State of execution and the diction whose laws would be applicable under State of origin, excluding, for example, other- such conflicts rules. wise applicable privileges recognized by the law of the witness's domicile, absent a special 6. In a related argument, Renfield asserts that, undertaking from the State of origin. as a matter of law, the communications cannot 5. The communicators did not expect the recipi be treated as ones seeking legal advice where ents to share the information other than per- the lawyers are French and, therefore, pre- haps with outside counsel. Renfield erroneous- sumptively unqualified to render advice on ly equates the issue of whether the communica- United States law. I disagree. While the fact tions were reasonably expected to be confiden that a lawyer is not a member of the bar of a tial with the issue of whether they are protect- United States jurisdiction may be relevant in ed by an attorney-client privilege under the law determining whether a communication is for which would be applicable under conventional the purpose of securing legal advice, it is not conflict of law principles. To equate those necessarily determinative of that issue.SMITH v. FA Cite as 98 F.R.D. of the state with the most significant rela- tionship with the communications. Re- statement (Second) of Conflict of Laws $ 139(1) (1971). In this case, the United States has the most significant relationship with the communications. The officials lo- cated in the New York office of Remy Amerique are the ones who have sought the legal advice and the United States has the same interest in protecting the freedom of these individuals to obtain legal advice as it does for any other American residents. For the same reasons stated above in connection with the Remy S.A. documents, the United States privilege law does recognize the Remy Amerique communications as privi- leged. It follows, therefore, that the attor- ney-client privilege is also appropriately ap- plied to communications of Remy Amerique officials with French "in-house counsel." II. IN CAMERA INSPECTION. [4, 5] As Renfield acknowledges, a party has no right to an in camera inspection of documents where his or her opponent files an affidavit setting forth facts sufficient to justify a claim of privilege and there is no record basis for questioning the veracity of the affidavit. I find no reason to question the representations of the defendants in this case. Renfield has had the opportunity to take discovery concerning the defend- ants' claims of privilege and has come up with nothing more than a single incident of misclassification which would appear to be the result of inadvertente. While the fact of foreign lawyers being consulted on Unit- ed States law might, in some factual con- text, raise an issue of whether the commu- nications were for the purpose of seeking legal, as contrasted with business advice; the background of the attorneys involved in these communications is such that their na- tionality raises no question in my mind about the defendants' representation. HEY NUMBER SYSTEM WA