Opinion
Civil Action No.: 01-1628 (RMU), Document No. 74.
April 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE PLAINTIFFS' JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN
This case involves the Syrian Arab Republic's alleged support of a terrorist group (the Kurdistan Workers Party or "PKK") that abducted and held some of the plaintiffs hostage in the early 1990s. The plaintiffs seek damages from the Syrian Arab Republic ("Syria") and the PKK for injuries resulting from the alleged hostage taking. Pending before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to endorse its jurisdictional discovery plan. Because the scope of the plaintiffs' discovery plan is reasonably limited to the scope of jurisdictional discovery, the court grants the plaintiffs' request in part. Because the plaintiffs have not yet demonstrated a sufficient need to depose six specific Syrian officials, the court denies the plaintiffs' request in part.
On September 30, 2005, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to submit a joint plan for conducting discovery on the issue of whether Syria provided material support to the Kurdistan Workers Party. Order (Sept. 30, 2005). In a submission styled as a "Response" to the court's September 30 memorandum opinion and order, the defendant indicated that it "declines to engage in such discovery." Response (November 29, 2005) at 1. The defendant goes on, however, to identify specific deficiencies that it perceives in the plaintiffs' jurisdictional discovery plan. Id. at 5 (stating that because the plaintiffs seek the depositions of "officials at the highest levels of the Syrian government," such discovery would "compromise Syria's sovereignty").
In a February 28, 2006 submission styled as a "Status Report," the defendant argues that discovery concerning Syria's alleged support of the PKK for purposes of ascertaining jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act substantially overlaps with "an element of Syria's alleged vicarious liability on the merits." Status Report (Feb. 28, 2006) at 4. For this reason, the defendant argues that a court order of jurisdictional discovery would "compromis[e] Syria's sovereignty and inflict other harm upon Syria's national interests." Id.
The defendant also argues that court ordered jurisdictional discovery "runs the risk of impinging harmfully on the present tensions in the Middle East affecting relations between the U.S. and Syria." Status Report (Feb. 28, 2006) at 5.
The defendant, both in its response to this court's September 30, 2005 memorandum opinion and in its February 28, 2006 status report, indicates its desire to file an interlocutory appeal from this court's denial of Syria's motion to dismiss and order requiring that the parties submit jurisdictional discovery plans. Response (Sep. 30, 2005) at 4; Status Report (Feb. 28, 2006) at 1. At this point in the litigation, however, the circuit court lacks appellate jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. Beecham v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 424 F.3d 1109, 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (ruling that the circuit court lacks appellate jurisdiction of an order for the parties to "confer and submit a joint jurisdictional discovery plan"). This is not to say that the circuit court will not have appellate jurisdiction following today's jurisdictional discovery order.
At this juncture, the defendant expresses its wish to appeal this court's order denying Syria's motion to dismiss and indicates its categorical "unwillingness to plan or engage in jurisdictional discovery." Response at 4. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to endorse its jurisdictional discovery plan. Mot. to Endorse Jurisdictional Disc. at 5. With the defendant's carte blanche refusal to engage even in planning for jurisdictional discovery, let alone levying specific challenges to the plaintiffs' jurisdictional discovery plan, the court will endorse the plaintiffs' discovery plan in large part. The plaintiffs' jurisdictional discovery plan, simply stated, requires the defendant to answer interrogatory requests, provide six Syrian officials for depositions and provide any other Syrian official responsible for liaising and maintaining contact with the PKK. Mot., Att. 4.
Aside from the plaintiffs' request to depose six Syrian officials, the court finds the scope of their discovery request reasonable, particularly in light of the defendant's refusal to even submit an alternative discovery plan. The court is not at this time prepared to order the defendant to produce the six Syrian officials which the plaintiffs request. The plaintiffs' depositions of Syrian officials responsible for "liaising and maintaining contact with the PKK" should suffice in ferreting out Syria's alleged support of the PKK, assuming of course that Syria complies with the court's discovery order fully and in good faith. For these reasons, it is this 27th day April hereby
ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall serve on the defendant a set of interrogatories and a request for production of documents within 14 days of this order, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall respond to the interrogatories and request for production of documents within 30 days of their service to the defendant, and it is
ORDERED that within 30 days after serving its answers to the interrogatories and providing the documents requested, the defendant shall produce officials and/or employees of the Syrian government and its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities who were responsible for liaising and maintaining contact with the PKK on behalf of the Syrian government in 1991 and for the five years prior thereto, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that within 45 days after the successful completion of document discovery and depositions, the plaintiffs shall file a response in opposition to the factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction set out in the defendant's motion to dismiss.