Epstein Secrets

ions to statutory, foreign sovereign immunity and protecting a sovereign's or sovereign's agency's legitimate claim to immunity from discovery.'" First City, Texas-Houston, N.A. a Rafulain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998) (ordering full discovery against defendant over whom court al- ready had sub

wing three conditions are satisfied: (1) an alien sues (2) for a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations (i.e., international law)." Kadic v. Karad- zic, 70 FM 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp, 343 F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir2003). Certain Plaintiffs in the

exceptions to statutory foreign sovereign immunity and protecting a sovereign’s or sovereign’s agency’s legitimate claim to immunity from discovery.” First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998) (ordering full discovery against defendant over whom court al- ready had subje

llowing three conditions are satisfied: (1) an alien sues (2) for a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations (i.e., international law).” Kadic v. Karad- zic, 70 F.8d 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp., 348 F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir.2003). Certain Plaintiffs in th

rts. The Court finds that “aircraft hijacking is generally recognized as a violation of inter- national law.” Burnett I, 274 F.Supp.2d at 100 (citing Kadic, 70 F.3d at 240; Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440, 447-49 (2d Cir.2000)). Further, “courts, including the Second Circuit, have almost unanimously

12(b)(6) motion). The ATCA provides a basis for relief when an alien sues for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations. 28 U.S.C. § 1350; Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995). Aircraft hijacking is considered a violation of international law, Kadic, 70 F.3d at 240, and the ATCA i

ally, discovery regarding NCB’s FSIA defense would necessarily subject the Kingdom to discovery, which the Court is hesitant to do unnecessarily. See First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998); see also Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (Sth Cir.1992)