Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04941-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 Rule 44.1 states: “A party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreign

country shall give notice by pleadings or other reasonable written notice. The court, in determining

foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not

submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court’s determination shall

be treated as a ruling on a question of law.” 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMIL ALPERIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

VATICAN BANK, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-99-04941 MMC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO PROVIDE MATERIALS

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 44.1

On June 13, 2006, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery

and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Provide Materials and Discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 44.1. For the reasons stated at the hearing and set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Jurisdictional Discovery is denied without prejudice and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Provide Materials and

Discovery is granted in part.

Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery

Plaintiffs seek jurisdictional discovery from Defendant IOR and Defendant OFM based on

the motions to dismiss filed by those Defendants, which rely in part on the declaration of Professor

Settimio Carmingnani Caridi. The Caridi declaration provides an expert opinion pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 44.11

 on the legal status of IOR in 1999, and of the legal status of OFM and

the College of San Girolamo. Specifically, the Caridi declaration opines on the Holy See’s legal

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 302 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

system, juridic persons, the legal status of the IOR, the location of the IOR, the organizational

structure of the IOR, the function of the IOR, ownership of the IOR, juridic status of the OFM and

juridic status of the College of San Girolamo. A premise of Plaintiffs’ argument in support of

discovery is that the Caridi declaration raises factual issues that are disputed. The Court is not

persuaded by this argument; the Caridi declaration is a foreign law legal opinion pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, and opines upon matters of law, not factual disputes.

IOR moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint on the grounds that the Foreign

Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) bars Plaintiffs’ action against IOR and that Plaintiffs lack

standing. Plaintiffs seek discovery from IOR regarding the purpose and functioning of the Vatican

Bank. Under the FSIA, a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of federal and state courts,

subject to certain exceptions. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604, 1605, 1607. The presumption under the FSIA is

that “‘actions taken by foreign states or their instrumentalities are sovereign acts and thus protected

from the exercise of our jurisdiction, unless one of the enumerated exceptions applies.’” Alpha

Therapeutic Corp. v. Nippon Hoso Kyokai, 199 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gregorian v.

Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1528, n. 11 (9th Cir. 1989)). Where jurisdictional facts under the FSIA are

in dispute, “the parties should be allowed to conduct discovery for the limited purpose of

establishing jurisdictional facts before the claims can be dismissed.” Alpha Therapeutic, 199 F.3d at

1088-89 (citing Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 713 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“In determining whether or not to permit jurisdictional discovery, however, there is a delicate

balance ‘between permitting discovery to substantiate exceptions to statutory foreign sovereign

immunity and protecting a sovereign’s or sovereign agency’s legitimate claim to immunity from

discovery.’” Alpha Therapeutic, 199 F.3d at 1088 (citing First City, Texas- Houston N.A. v.

Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 1998)). To achieve this balance , “discovery should be

ordered circumspectly and only to verify allegations of specific facts crucial to an immunity

determination.” Id. (emphasis added). 

There is a critical distinction between a foreign entity’s status as a sovereign, which entitles

it to protection under FSIA, and an entity’s activities, which may be relevant to whether a FSIA

exception to sovereign immunity applies in a particular case. To qualify as a sovereign, IOR must

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 302 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2 There is no evidence of criminal activity before the Court. 

3

be a separate legal person or an organ of the Holy See and neither a citizen of a State of the United

States nor created under the laws of any third country. 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b)(1)-(3). To determine

whether an entity is an organ, courts “examine the circumstances surrounding the entity’s creation,

the purposes of its activities, its independence from the government, the level of government

financial support, its employment policies, and its obligations and privileges under state law.” EIE

Guam Corp. v. Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd, 322 F.3d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 2003). Here,

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that IOR engaged in for profit merchant banking, and in particular

money laundering. Plaintiffs argue that IOR’s alleged criminal activity is inconsistent with the

pietical purpose of IOR established by the Caridi declaration. Plaintiffs argue that if the main

business of the Vatican Bank is to launder money for the Mafia, “it is unlikely that the Holy See will

admit that the Vatican Bank is its organ or under actual control and far more likely that it will

disavow any control of criminal activities.” According to Plaintiffs, this purported factual dispute

regarding the purpose of the IOR warrants discovery into the real function of the IOR. However,

there is no genuine factual dispute over facts crucial to an immunity determination. Even assuming

arguendo that Plaintiffs are correct that the IOR engaged in criminal activity,2 that activity by itself

would not strip IOR of its pietical purpose or its sovereign status. Plaintiffs’ argument that the Holy

See would disavow the IOR thereby destroying any sovereign immunity is highly speculative and

not sufficient to justify obtaining discovery from a sovereign. 

The IOR recognizes that in some circumstances discovery regarding IOR’s activities as

opposed to its status as a sovereign could possibly be relevant if there were a factual dispute whether

an FSIA exception applies, but points out that the current posture of the case does not involve factual

issues regarding exceptions. IOR argues in its motion to dismiss not only that FSIA bars Plaintiff’s

claims, and also raises numerous independent grounds as to why the three FSIA exceptions pled by

Plaintiffs do not apply as a matter of law. IOR’s Mot. to Dismiss at 9-31. Plaintiffs have made no

showing that their requested discovery regarding the allegation that the Vatican Bank engages in

criminal activity is crucial to resolving the applicability of any exception. See Kelly v. Syria Shell

Petroleum Development, 213 F.3d 841, 851 (5th Cir. 2000) (upholding denial of discovery where

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 302 Filed 06/15/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

plaintiffs failed to identify specific facts which would show that an FSIA exception applied);

Raccoon Recovery v. Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinet, 244 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1141 (D.

Colo. 2002) (denying FSIA discovery where none of the discovery was reasonably calculated to

obtain facts bearing on applicability of FSIA exception). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not met their

burden at this stage of showing that jurisdictional facts are in dispute for purposes of discovery. 

Jurisdictional discovery with respect to OFM is not ripe. In general, jurisdictional discovery

should be granted “where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted . . .

or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo

Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430, n. 24 (9th Cir. 1977). If, however, the assertions relating to

jurisdiction appear “attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by

defendant,” a court would not abuse its discretion in denying discovery. Terracom v. Valley

National Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, OFM moves to dismiss based on standing,

not on lack of jurisdiction. Further, OFM has not filed an answer to any of the four complaints in

this case, so it has made no specific denials with respect to jurisdiction. Moreover, Plaintiffs have

not made a sufficient showing to justify jurisdictional discovery at this stage when OFM is not

challenging jurisdiction in its motion to dismiss. 

In their papers, Plaintiffs argue briefly that, contrary to the arguments in the motion to

dismiss that OFM is a separate juridic entity from its related entities, OFM’s website states that it

controls other provinces, fraternities and related entities. But Plaintiffs have failed to provide any

information as to where that information is located on the website, if at all. Even at the hearing,

Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to point to anything posted on OFM’s website that would raise an

issue of OFM’s control of other entities for purposes of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Jurisdictional Discovery from OFM is premature and therefore denied without prejudice. If in

the future OFM specifically denies jurisdiction and decides to file a motion to dismiss based on lack

of jurisdiction, the Court would be inclined upon proper motion to permit some limited jurisdictional

discovery, such as a deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) regarding

OFM’s control over its related entities. 

//

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 302 Filed 06/15/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Motion to Provide Materials and Discovery

Professor Caridi’s declaration in support of Defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, refers to numerous foreign language documents. Those

documents, or excerpts thereof, are neither attached to the declaration nor otherwise provided to the

Court. Plaintiffs seek an order compelling IOR to produce all foreign language documents and

translations. 

There is no authority requiring production of foreign language documents or their

translations under Rule 44.1, although the usual practice is to provide them. See, e.g., Universe

Sales Co. v. Silver Castle, 182 F.3d 1036, 1038 (9th Cir. 1999) (expert testimony and excerpts of

foreign law is basic way to prove foreign law); Pittway v. United States, 88 F.3d 501, 504, N. 1 (7th

Cir. 1996) (stating that ideally parties should provide translations); Haywin Textile Prods v.

International Finance Investment, 137 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D. N.Y. 2001) (faulting party for not

providing English and Bangladeshi documents); Turkey v. OKS, 146 F.R.D. 24, 27 (D. Mass. 1993)

(stating that expert testimony is usually accompanied by extracts from foreign legal material). IOR,

however, points out that most of the foreign language documents have either already been provided

during the six-year course of this litigation or are publicly available. See IOR’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot.

at 3:8-10 (core primary source material relating to IOR produced in 2000); n. 4 (other core material

such as Code of Canon Law and constitutional document Pastor Bonus widely available in English). 

Plaintiffs do not argue to the contrary, except to make the strange argument that documents

previously produced in this case “do not exist” for purposes of discovery. That argument lacks

merit. 

IOR states that providing translations would be unduly costly. Plaintiffs, of course, may

obtain their own translations of the foreign language documents. In resolving this discovery motion,

the Court has balanced the cost to IOR, a presumptive sovereign, against the fact that as a practical

matter, translations of the foreign language materials will likely be useful in this case. It appears

that a reasonable amount of information regarding relevant documents is publicly available. 

Accordingly, for the documents relating to each Defendant, each Defendant shall provide to

Plaintiffs and to the Court a declaration listing the foreign language documents that are already in

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 302 Filed 06/15/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

the record and their translations, including where in the record those documents are located, and the

documents that are otherwise publicly available and have publicly available translations with which

Defendants have no material disagreement. Defendants shall provide this information no later than

June 30, 2006. If Plaintiff shows that there are crucial documents remaining that are untranslated,

the Court may order translations done, perhaps at joint expense. The parties should meet and confer

on this issue before seeking further court intervention. Of course, this order only addresses the issue

of translations for purposes of discovery between the parties, not what Judge Chesney might require

for her purposes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 302 Filed 06/15/06 Page 6 of 6