Parties to civil litigation often seek to obtain records held by foreign companies by subpoenaing their U.S. subsidiaries or affiliates. In such circumstances, the subpoenaing party must demonstrate that a close relationship exists between the foreign and domestic entities. This issue recently arose in Hake v. Citibank, N.A., 2020 WL 1467132 (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2020), where the plaintiffs—individuals who were injured in terrorist attacks allegedly committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and its agents—moved to compel HSBC Bank USA N.A. (HBUS), a domestic entity, to produce records held by its foreign parent, HSBC Holdings plc (HSBC Holdings). Southern District Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker denied plaintiffs’ motion on various grounds, including because they had failed to show a sufficiently close relationship between HBUS and HSBC Holdings to justify an order requiring HBUS to produce the records.

‘Hake’

Plaintiffs currently are pursuing two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) against Iran, its central bank (Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran (Bank Markazi)), another Iranian bank (Bank Melli Iran (Bank Melli)), and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC): the Hake case and the Gill case. Plaintiffs filed proceedings in the Southern District of New York to compel compliance with several third-party subpoenas that they served on HBUS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (Rule 45) to obtain documents that they claim to need in connection with their D.D.C. lawsuits.