## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2805 J EN NY R UBIN , et al., P la intif fs-A pp ellees, an d D EB ORAH D. P E T E R S ON, et a l., Interv eno rs-A pp ellees , v. T HE I S LA MI C R EPUBLI C OF I RAN, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant, an d F I EL D M USE UM O F N ATURAL H ISTORY a nd U NIVER S ITY OF C HI CAGO, THE O RI ENTAL I NST IT UTE, Interv eno rs .
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 03 CV 9370

—Blan ch e M. Mannin g, Judge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 26, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 29, 20112 N o. 08

- 2805

The H onorab le Phil ip P. Si m on, ChiefJ ud ge ofthe Un it ed  St at es Dis t ri c tCour tf or the Northe rnDis t ri c tofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. Befo re B AU ER a nd S YKES, C ircu it Ju dg es , a nd S I MO N , D i s t r i ctJudg e .  S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . The I sl am i c Republ i c o fI ra n appeal s tw o or ders i ssued i n connect i on with a l ongrunni ng eff or t to col l ect on a l ar ge j ud gm ent e nter ed ag ains t itf o r i ts r o l e i n a 1 99 7 te r r o r i sta tt ac k

. The pl ainti ff s ar e Am er i ca n c i ti ze ns who w ere i nj ur ed i n a br ut als ui ci de bo m bingi n J erus al em, I sr ael, c ar r i ed o ut b y Ha ma s w i th th e a s s i s t a n c e o fI r a n i a n ma t e r i a ls up portand tr ai ni ng. Th e vi cti m s obtained a $7 1 m i l l i on d efa u lt ju d g m en t a ga in st Iran in fe d er al d ist ric t c ou rtin W as h in gt on , D .C ., an d th en reg ist er ed th at ju d gm en t in the Northe rn Dist ric t ofI l l i noi s forthe pu rpos e o fat
tac h ing tw o col l ecti ons ofPer si an anti quit i es own ed by I ra n but o n l ong- ter m aca dem i c l oan to the Unive rs ity of Ch i cago ’ s O ri entalInsti tute. They a l so soughtto at tach a third coll ection of Pe rsia n a rtif acts ow ne d by C hicag o’s Fi el d M useum o fN atur alH i sto ry . Th ey conte nd that th i s coll ec ti o n, t o o , b el o ng s to I r anb utwas s to l ena nd smugg l ed o uto fthe c o unt r y i n the 1 92 0s o r 1 93 0s a nd l ate r sol d to th e m u se um . I ra n’s appealr equi re s us to consi der the scope and oper ati on o f§ 1609 o fthe For ei gn S o v e re i gn I mm un i t i e s Ac to f1 9 7 6 ( “ F S I A” ) , 2 8 U. S
. C. §§ 1330 ( a) , 16 02- 1611 , wh i ch pro vi des thata f or ei gn state ’s p ro pertyi n the U ni ted S tat es i s i m m une fro m a t t a c h me n t unl e s s a s p e c i fi c s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n t o i mm unity a pp l i es.N o. 08

- 2805 3 T h e d ist ric t c ou rth eld t h a t t h e im m u n ity co d ified in § 16 0 9 i s a n a ffi r mat i v e de fe ns e p e r s o na lt o the f o re i gn sov er ei gn and m u st be s peci al l y pl eaded. Because I ra n h ad n otap p ea re d in t h e a tt ac h m en t p ro c ee d in g, th is ru lin g h ad th e e ffec t o f d ive st in g t h e c olle c tio n s o f th eir sta tutory i m m unity unl ess I ra n appeare d and affi rm at i v e l y a s s e r t e d i t
. S o I r a n a p p e a r e d a n d ma d e th e i mm unity c l ai m . In re sponse the pl ai nti ff s ser ved I ra n w i th r equests f ordi sco ver y r ega rdi ng all I r an i an own ed ass ets l oca ted anywhere i n the U ni ted S tat es. N ot s u r p rising ly, I ran resisted , m aintain ing tha t suc h farfl unga nd o pen - en ded di sc o ve r y abo uti ts Am er i ca nba se d pr o per tywas i nc o ns i st en t w ith the F S I A. The distri ct c ourtdi sag re ed and or dered g ener al

- ass et disc o v e r yt o p r o c e e d. I r a n a pp e a l e d. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s di sco ver y o rder effecti vel y r ej ecte d I ra n’ s cl ai m o fs o ve r ei g n i m m uni tya nd i s th er efo re i m m edi ate l y a pp eal abl e under the c ol l ate ra l

- or der doctr i ne. The court’ s e ar l i ero rder, wh i ch deni ed § 1 609 i m m uni tyi n the absen ce o fa n a ppea r an ce b y the f or ei gn st ate , i s a l so p ro perl y b ef or e thi s co urt. That o r derr ai se s cl o se l y r el at ed que st i o ns abou t s o ve r ei g nproper ty i m m u n ity and i s r evi ved f orr evi ew by I ra n’s i nter l ocuto ryappealo fthe gener al

- ass et discove ry order. Bo tho r der s ar e se r i o us l y fl aw ed; we r ev er se . The dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp ro ach t o thi s ca se cannot b e reco ncil ed wi ththe t ex t, s tructur e, a nd hi st o r y o fthe F S I A. S ec ti o n 1609 o fthe Actpr o vi des tha t “the proper ty i n the U ni ted S tat es ofa f or ei gn st ate shall4 N o. 08

- 2805 be i m m un e fro m at tachm ent” un less an e num er ate d excepti on a pp l i es. (E m phasi s a dd ed. ) Thi s s ecti on codi fi es the l ongs tandi ng co m m on- l aw pri nci ple thata f or ei gn st ate ’ s pro pertyi n the U n ite d Sta tes i s pre sum ed i m m une fro m at tachm ent. Thi s pre sum pti ve i m m unit y, w hen r ead with o therpro vi si ons of the FS I A , r equi re s the pl ai nti ffto i denti fy th e sp eci fi c pro pertyhe s eek s to att ach; the cour t ca nnot c om p el a f or ei gn st ate to su bmi t to g en er ald i sc o ve r y abo uta l li ts a ss et s i n the U ni ted St ate s. The presum pti on of i m m unity al so r equi r es the c ou r t to de te r m i ne

— sua s ponte i fnece ss a ry

— whethe r a n e xc ept i o n t o i m m uni tya ppl i es ; the cour t m ust m ake thi s dete rm i nati on r ega rdl ess o f w hetherthe f or ei gn st ate appears .
I . B a c kg r o und This appeal h as i ts ro ots i n a v i ci ous t er ro ri st att ack. O n Sep te m b er 4, 19 97, H am as ca rrie d o u t a trip le sui ci de bom bi ng i n the cro w ded Ben Yehud a S tr eet p ed es tr ian m all in Jeru sa lem

. SeeCa m p u z a n o v. Is lam ic R epu blic o

f Iran , 281 F. Sup p . 2d 258, 261 (D .D
. C
. 2003). F i ve b y st an der s wer e k i l l ed an d nearl y 2 00 wer e i nj ur ed. Ham as c l ai m ed r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r the b o m bing, a nd Isra eli p olic e a rre st ed tw o H am a s op er at ive s w h o p ar tic ip at ed in t h e a tt ac k. Id. at 261-62. Th ey an d other m em bers of thei r H am as cel lga ve I sr ael iautho ri ti es i nfo rm ati on about the pl anni ng, fi nanci ng, and executi on o fthi s a ct o f ter ro ri sm . T he tw o w er e l ate r convi cted o fm ult i ple co unts of m u rd er an d at te m p te d m u rd er . Id.N o. 08

- 2805 5

The v ic tim s als o rec ei ved an aw ard of pu nit ive dam ages 1 ag ain st othe r d efend an ts

— senio r Iran ian officials

— b u t this at t ac hm en tpr oc ee di ng i nvol ves on l y I ra n i t s el f

. Li ability a g a in st I ra n an d its o ffici a l s w a s p re m ise d o n § 1 6 0 5 (a )(7), r e a d i n c o nj u n c t i o n w i th th e “ F l a t o w A me n d me n t, ” 2 8 U
. S
. C. § 1 60 5 not e, t o c re at e a pri vat e c aus e of ac t i on ag ain st f or ei g n soverei gns f or act s ofte rrori sm , i ncluding ext raj ud ic ial kil li ngs. In a se parate c a se , t h e D.C. Circ uit lat er held thatno such pri vate caus e of act ion againstf orei gn sover- (co n tin u ed ...) T he pl a in t iffs here

—Jenn y Ru bin an d her m oth er, D e b o r a h R u b i n ; S t u a r tH e r s h a n d h i s w i fe , R e n a y F r y m; N oam Roze nm an and hi s par ents, El ena a nd Tzvi Rozenm an; Danie lM i l l er ; and A bra ham M endel son

— are A m er ica n cit ize n s w h o w er e g rie v o u sly w ou n d ed in the S eptem ber4, 19 97 bom bi ng o r su ffer ed sev er e e m oti o n al a n d loss -of-c om p an ion sh ip inju rie s a s a res u lt of b ein g c los ely rela te d t o t h os e w h o w er e p h ys ica lly hurt. These vi cti m s fi l ed sui t a ga in st I ra n i n federa l dist r i c t c o ur t i n W a s hing t o n, D. C. , a l l e g i ng tha t I r a n w as r es po ns ibl e f o r the b o m bing s as a r esult ofthe t r aini ng an d su p p or t ith ad p ro vid ed to H am as . Id. Ju ris dict i on was pr edi cated o n § 1 60 5( a) ( 7) ( 19 96 ) o fthe F S I A, a nd the di str i ct c ourtco nsol i dated the acti on with another sui t fi l ed by a s epara te gr oup ofvi cti m s o fthe bom bi ng. Id. a t2 6 1
. I r a n wa s p r o pe r l y s e r v e d b utde f a ul t e d. P u r s u a n tt o th e r e q u i r e me n t s o f§ 1 6 0 8 ( e ) ofth e F S I A, th e di st r i ctc o ur t he l d a thr ee - daye vi den ti ar y he ar i ng bef ore iss uinga defa ultj ud gm ent a gainst I ra n f or $71. 5 m i l l i on in com pensato rydam age s. Id. at27 2- 77. 16 N o. 08

- 2805

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 eig ns (as op p o se d to ind iv id u als) exists

. See C i cipp i o-Pu l eo v. Isl ami c Republ i c o

f Ira n , 35 3 F .3d 10 2 4 , 10 3 3 ( D .C . C ir . 20 0 4 ). Congr es s resp on ded by s uppl yi ng a c aus e ofac t i on thr ough the N ati onal Defe nse A uthorizat ion Act of2008, Pub

. L. N o. 110- 1 8 1 , 1 2 2 S t a t
. 3 , w hi c h a m e nd e d thi s s e c t i ono fthe F S I A. T his histo ry ha s no effect on the m erits of this ap p eal. T he Fiel d M u se u m an d the O rien tal Institu te ha v e jointly 2 bri efed thi s appe al . W e re fert o the m c ol l ec t i vel y a s “the m useum s” unles s the contex t r equire s otherwise

. T he R u b in p lain tiffs are p u rsu ing sim ilar litiga tion ag ain st 3 B o sto n -a re a m u se u m s th a t p o sse ss a rt w o rk o w n ed b y Ir a n . S ee (co n tin u ed ...) A t thi s point the pl ai nti ff s f aced a p ro bl em f am i l i arto I r an ’ s j udg m en t cr edi to r s: The y ha d won a si g nifi ca nt j udg m en t butenf o r ce m en t o pti o ns w er e l i m i te d. A na ti o nw i de sea rch f orat tachabl e I ran ian as set s e ventual l y l ed t o Ch i c a g o a nd i t s r i c h c o l l e c t i o n o fa nc i e nta r t i f acts house d in the ci ty’ s m aj orm useum s. The pl ai nti ff s r egi ster ed thei r j ud gm ent with the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cou r t f o r the Nor th ern Di st ri cto fI l l i no i s an d s er ve d the Universi tyo fChi ca g o ’ s Or i en ta lIns ti tu te a nd l at erthe Fi el d M useum o fN atur alH i sto rywith a C i tat i on t o Disc ove r A sse ts pu rs uant to Rule 69 ( a) o f the Feder al Rules o fC i vi lP ro cedure and chapter73 5, se cti on 5 /2

- 1402 o fthe I l l i no i s C om pi l ed S ta tu te s. The pl aint i ff s i den

2 ti fi ed thr ee speci fi c co l l ecti ons i n the m useum s’ poss ess i on th at th ey so ug ht to at ta ch an d ex ec ut e ag ains t: th e Pers epol i s a nd C h ogha M i sh Col l ecti ons at the Or i ental In sti tute, and the H er zfel d C ol l ecti on a t the Fi eld Mu s e u m. 3N o. 08

- 2805 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 R u b in v . Isl am ic R ep u b li c o f Ira n , 45 6 F
. Su p p . 2 d 2 28 ( D
. M ass. 2 0 0 6 ). T he Iran -Un ited S t a t es C laim s Tr ib u na l w as estab lished in 4 J anuary 1981 un der the ter m s ofthe Algiers Accords, w hich res olved the cr is is preci pitat ed b y Iran’ s se izure ofAm eri can host ages at the United Stat es Em bassy during the Irani an R ev o lu tio n in 19 7 9
. M i n i st ry of D ef ense & Su pp ort f

or the A rm ed F or ce s of the Islam ic R ep u b li c o f Ira n v. E lah i, 129 S. Ct. 17 32, 1736 ( 2009)
. Aft er the hostages w ere taken, Pres ident Cart er bl oc ke d Ir ani an as s et s withi n the Uni t ed S t at es . I n c onn ec t i on w ith t h e rele ase ofthe host ages, the Algiers Accords res tore d the fi nan c i al pos ition o f I ra n t o thatwhi c h e xi s t ed be f or e the cr isi s. Id
. The T rib u n al adjud ic ates prop erty cl aim s betw een th e t w o s t a t e s a n d th e i r n a t i o n a l s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i th th e t e r ms o f th e A lg ie rs A cc o rd s. Id. The fi rs t tw o ar e co l l ec tio n s o fPer si an anti quit i es re c ov er e d in e x c av at ion s in th e Ira n ian cit y of P er se p olis i n the 1 93 0s a nd o n the Cho gh a M ish pl ain in s o uthw es te rn Iran in t h e 1 96 0s . A rc h ae olo gis ts from th e U n iv e r s i t y o f Ch i c a g o l e d the s e e xc a v a t i o ns , a nd I ra n l oaned th e ar ti f acts to the Ori entalInsti tute f orl ongter m stud y a nd to deci pher the El am ite wri ti ng tha t appears on so m e o fthe tabl ets i ncl ud ed am ong the di sco ve r i es . The te r m s o fthe a ca demi c l o anr equi r e th e Ori ental Insti tute to re turn the co l l ecti ons to I ra n w hen study i s com ple te. The I nsti tute say s i t has fi ni shed studying the Ch o g ha M ish C oll ection and i s read y to return i t to I r an pen di ng r es o l ut i o n o f a cl ai m be f o r e th e I ra nU ni te d State s Cl ai m s Tr ibunal i n the H ague. S tudy of 4 th e P er se p o l i s C olle c tio n is ap p ar en tly on go in g, al-8 N o. 08

- 2805 th ou gh th e In st itu te sa ys it h as ret u rn ed p ar ts of th is co l l ec ti o n t o I r an . The thi r d g r o up o fa r ti f ac ts i s k no wn as the H er zfel d C ol l ecti on, afterthe Germ an ar chaeo l ogi st E rn st H er zfe ld w h o w or ke d on ex c av at ion s in P er sia for 30 y ea rs in th e e ar ly tw en tie th ce n tu ry . See W i ki pedia, Erns t He r z f e l d, h t t p: / / e n. wi k i pe di a. or g/ w i ki /Erns t_ H er zfel d ( l as t vi si te d M ar . 1 0, 2 01 1)
. The F i el d M us eu m pur ch as ed a set of pr eh i st o r i c po tt ery, meta l wor k s, a nd or nam ents fro m H er zfel d i n 194 5. T h e plainti ff s co ntest th e F ield M u se u m ’s t itle ; th ey cl a im th at Iran ow n s t h is col l ecti on be cause H er zfel d sto le the a rt i f acts and sm uggl ed them ou t of the co untry i n the 1920 s a nd 19 30s. I ran, ho wev er, do es no t cl ai m o wner sh i p o fthe H er zfel d Co l l ec ti o n. T he plaintiff s all eged that the s e three coll ection s are s u bj e c t t o a t t a c h me n t u n d e r t w o p r o v i s i o n s i n th e F S I A: ( 1) the excepti on t o § 1 60 9 at tachm ent i m m unity for “pro pertyi n the U ni ted S tat es ofa f or ei gn state
. . . used f ora com m er ci alact i vi ty” wh er e th e underl yi ng j ud gm ent “ re l ate s t o a cl ai m f orwh i c h t h e forei gn st ate i s no t i m m une, ” 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 610(a )(7) ; and ( 2) the “bl ock ed as s e t s ” pr o v i s i o n o f the Te r r o r i s m R i s k I ns ur a nc e Act of20 02 ( “TRIA”), wh i ch p ro vi des thatthe bl ock ed ass ets of a terrorist party or its agenc y or ins tru m en tality are subj ect to executi on t o sat i sfy a j ud gm ent obtained und erthe FS I A ’ s t er ro ri sm exce pti on, Pub. L. N o. 10 7- 297, Tit l e I I, § 201( a) , 11 6 S tat
. 23 22, 23 37 ( 2002 ) ( codi fi ed at 28 U. S
. C. § 1 61 0 note). The m us eu m s r es po nde d tha t th e col l ecti ons ar e i m m une fro m at tachm en t un der § 16 09 ofN o. 08

- 2805 9 th e F SIA an d th at n eit h e r t h e c om m er c ial ex c ep tio n in § 1 61 0(a )(7) n or th e “ b loc ke d as se ts ” p ro vis ion o f T R IA appli es. The pla i nti ff s m ove d fo r parti alsum m ar y j ud gm ent, asking th e cou rt to hold th at § 1609 i m m un ity is an affirm at ive defe nse that o nl y the f or ei gn st ate i tse l fcan ass er t. Thi s qu esti on fi rs t ca m e be f or e a m agi str ate j udg e , wh o i s s ue d a r e po r ta nd r e c o mm e nd a ti on agreeing w ith th e plaintiff s tha t § 1609 im m un ity i s p erso n al to th e fore ign st at e an d m u st b e a ffirm at ive ly ple aded. The m useum s obj ecte d. The U ni te d Sta tes e nt e r e d the fr a y, fi l i nga s t a t e men to fint e r e s t on the s i de ofthe m u seum s. The di str i ct j ud ge w as not i m press ed and e nt e r e d a n o r de r a g r e e i ngwi th the ma g i s t r ate j ud ge that the for ei gn st ate i tse l fm ust s p eci al l y pl ead § 1 609 i m m unity. I n s t e a d o f t a k i n g a n i mme d i a t e a p p e a l, th e mu s e u ms ask ed the cour t t o cer ti fy the ord erf orappealunder 28 U
. S. C. § 1 292(b), but othe r eve nts in the l i ti gat i on s oo n ove rt oo k thi s re quest. Tw o days be f or e the m useum s fi l ed th eir § 1292 (b) m otion, I ran ap p eared in th e d istri ct cou rt an d as se rt ed § 16 09 at ta c h m e n t im m u n ity . Th is d ra m at ica l l y a l te r ed th e co ur se o fthe pr o ce eding s. The pl ai nt if fs p rom p tly sh ifted th eir atten tion to I ran, seeking d iscovery no t j us t o n the thr ee m us eu m co l l ec ti o ns b uto n all I ra ni an as se ts i n the Uni te d S ta te s. Sinc e th en, the pl aint i ff s an d I r anha ve b ee n e m br o i l ed i n l i ti g ation co nc erni ngthe prop er sco pe ofthes e di sco ver y r equests
. The di spute spa wned n um er o us mot i o ns , m ul ti pl e r ul i ng s bythe m ag ist ra te j u d ge an d th e d ist ric t c ou rt, an d n ow t h is10 N o. 08

- 2805 appeal

. W e wil lnottr y t o provi de a c om p lete acc ount o f whatt r an spi r ed be l o w buti ns te ad o fferthe f oll ow in g sum m ar y. A fterI ra n m ade i ts appearance , the pla i nti ff s s er ved i t with a r equest f orpro du ction o f d ocum ents und er Rule 34 and a not i ce o fdeposi ti on under Rul e 3 0( b) ( 6) o f th e F ede r alRul es o fCi vi lPr o ce dur e. The do cument re q u es t h ad te n se c tio n s. T h e fir st n in e s ou gh t m at er ials re lat in g to th e Pe rs ep olis , C h og h a M ish , an d H er zfe ld C oll ection s. T h e ten th requ est w as signifi can tly m ore am bitious. I n relevan t pa rt, i t d em an d ed that I ran turn ove r “[ a] l ldocu m en ts, i ncl ud i ng witho ut l i m i tat i on an y c o m m uni ca ti o n o r c o r r es po nde nc e, c o nc er ni nga ny and al lta ngibl e an d i ntangibl e a sse ts, o fwh ate ver na tu r e an d k i nd, i n w hi chI r ana nd/ o r a ny o fI r an ’ s ag en c ies an d ins tr u m en ta litie s h as an y le ga l an d /or eq u ita b le i nt er es t, tha t ar e l o ca te d wi th i n the Uni te d S ta te s . . . . ” The Rul e 30(b) ( 6) no ti ce s o ug htt o de po se a n o ffi ce r o r a g en t des i g na te d b y I r ant o t es ti fy o n i ts b eh al fr eg ar di ng its as se ts in t h e U n ite d Sta te s. I ra n so ught a prot ecti ve or der s hi el ding i t fro m thes e disc ove ryr equests and al so m ov ed forsum m ar y j ud gm en t se ek i ng a dec l ar at i o n th at th e Pe r se po l i s, Ch ogha M i sh, a nd Her zfel d Co l l ec ti o ns a r e i m m une fr o m e xe cuti o n a nd a tt ac hm en t unde r the F S I A. The p lai nt i ff s co unter ed w i th a m oti on under Rul e 5 6( f) o f t h e F edera l R ules of CivilPr o c ed ure requ esting ad d iti ona l d iscovery be f o r e r es po ndi ngto I r an ’ s su m m ar y -j udg m en t m o ti o n. This m oti on was co m ple tel y s epara te fro m the pla i nti ff s’ ear l i erdi sco ver y r eq u est s under Rules 30 ( b) ( 6) and 34,N o. 08

- 2805 11 but i t l ed to si gni fi cant c onfusi on regar ding w hi ch dis

cove ryr equests were actual l y o n the tabl e. In additi on to th e R u le 5 6 ( f ) m ot ion, th e p lain tiffs als o s ep ar at ely m o ve d t o c o m pelI r ant o c o m pl y wi th its pr ev i o us do cum ent r equ ests under Rul e 3 4 a nd i ts deposi ti on not i ce un d er Ru le 30(b) (6). The m agi str ate j ud ge eve ntua ll y g ra nted the pla i nti ff s’ Rule 56( f ) m oti on f ora d dit i onaldi sco ver y. The j ud ge sai d the pl ai nti ff s were enti tl ed to the f ol l owing disco ve r yfr o m Ir an : ( 1) a ny do cument s r el at i ngt o the th r ee c o nt es te d c o l l ec ti o ns o fPe r si ana r ti f ac ts; (2) do cum ents that m i ght s up portthe pla i ntiff s’ theo rythat th e Or i ental Ins ti tu te was e ffec ti ve l y I r an ’ s ag en t; a nd ( 3) a Rule 30(b) ( 6) deposi ti on o fan o ffi cero r age nt autho

ri zed to te sti fy on I ra n’s behal f

. The m agi str ate j ud ge als o gr an te d th e p lain tiffs ’ m ot io n t o c om p el, bu t o n ly “[ i ] n a s mu c h ” a s th e d i s c o v e r y wa s n e c e s s a r y f o r t he p l a i n t i ff s t o r e s p o n d t o I r a n ’ s r e q u e s t f o r p a r t i a ls u mm ar y j udg m en t. I r ano bj ec te d b utwas o ve r r ul ed bythe dist ri ct c ourt
. The pl aint i ff s i nt er pr et ed th es e r ul i ng s as c o m pel l i ng Iran to co m p ly in fu ll w ith all th eir d isc ov er y a n d d ep os iti o n r e qu e s t s u nd e r R ul e s 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) a nd 3 4
. I r a n re ad th e o rd er s m u c h m o r e n ar ro w ly a n d th ou gh t itw as on ly re quir ed to pro du ce di sco ver y r el atin g d i re ctl y t o i ts m ot i on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. In part i cul arthe parti es d isp u te d w h et h er Iran w as req u ire d to p ro vid e g en er alasset discov ery. I ran sough t clari fi cation, or in the altern ativ e, a prot ecti ve or der. The m agi str ate j ud ge denie d Iran ’s m ot ion for a p ro te c tiv e ord er an d e x p l icit ly12 N o. 08

- 2805

Af t er I ra n fi l ed thi s appe al, ano the r gr oup of j udgm en t 5 c re di t or s ag ai ns tI ra n was gr ant ed l ea ve t o i nt er ven e i n the dist ri ctcou rt
. The le ad p lai nti ffi n thi s group i s D eborah Peter son. Aft er i nter vening, the Peter son plai nti ff s parti ci pated i n thi s a p p ea l

. The i r pre s en c e, ho wever, ha s no be ar i ng o n the m erits of the ap p eal. or dered g ener al

- ass et disc ove ryto p ro c eed. The di str i ct j udg e a ffi r me d , d i s mi s s i n g I r an ’ s co nc er ns a bo ut sov er ei gn i m m unity a s “ov erbl own . ” But the j ud ge w as l ab o r i ngunde r a mis appr eh en si o n; s he said the pl ainti ff s were “n ot se ek i ngg en er ala ss etdi sc o ve r y abo ut ev er y c on c eiv ab le a ss et of Iran ’s in th e U n ite d Sta te s.” O fco urse , ge nera l

- ass et disc ove rywas pre cis elywh at th e pl aint i ff s wer e seeki nga nd i nde ed whatthe m agi str ate j ud ge had or dered. H i s o rderpl ai nl y s tat ed that “I ra n w i l lco m plywith [ the pl ai nti ff s’ ] r eq u est s for g en er ala ss et d i sc o ve r y [ , ] ” an d thi s ho l di ngwas the foc al p oin t o f Iran ’s o bj ec tio n be for e t h e d i s t ric t c ou rt . In a m oti on to re consi der, the pla i nti ff s note d th e d istri ct j ud ge’s error. Th e j ud ge th en ackn ow le d g ed the ove rsi ght a nd is su ed a one- page o rderco m pel l i ng I ra n to subm i t t o the pl ai nti ff s’ r equests fo r general

- ass et disco ve r y . I r ana ppea l ed unde r the c o l l at er al

- o r derdoc tr i ne an d a l so soughtr evi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e ar l i er or d er d ec lar in g th at § 1 609 sov er ei gn- proper ty im m un ity m us t be assert ed by the f oreign state i tself. W e pe rm itt ed th e m us eu m s to i nt er ve ne o n a ppea l, a nd the Unite d Sta tes appeare d a s an am i cus i n supp or t o f re ve rs al. 5N o. 08

- 2805 13 I I . Discussi on A . Ap pell at e J uri sdict i on B efo re w e a d d re ss th e m er its , th er e i s a th re sh old questi on about appell ate j uri sdic ti on

— tw o questi ons, actual l y, bec ause tw o i nter l ocuto ryo rder s hav e be en ap p ealed : ( 1) the d istri ct cou rt’s general-asset d iscovery or der; an d (2 ) the cour t’ s e ar l i ero rderr ej ecting § 1609 s o v e r e i g n- pr o pe r t y i mm un i t y i n the ab sence o fa n a ppeara nce byI ra n. J uri sdic ti on o verthe gen er al

- ass et d iscovery ord er i s a rel a t ively straight forw ard m atter. The j uri sdic ti onalanal ysi s r ega rdi ng the co urt’ s e ar l i er o r de r i s s l i g ht l y mo r e c o mpl i c a t e d. I t is we l l

- e s t ab l i s he d tha t“ a s a g e ne r a lr ul e , a n o rder au th or izin g d i s c ov er y in aid of ex ec u tio n of j u d gm en t is not appeal abl e unti lthe end ofthe case . ” In reJoi ntE. & S. Di s t s . A s b e s t o s L i t ig. , 22 F. 3d 755, 760 (7th Cir. 1994 ). H ow ever, the ord er at issu e here inva d es I ran ’s s o v e r e i g n i mm un i t y, a nd i ti s e qu a l l y we l l

- e s t ab l i shed th at ord e r s d en yin g c laim s o f im m u n ity m ay be im m ed iate l y a pp eal ed und erthe col l ate ra l

- or der doct rine. M it chel l v. Forsy th , 472 U .S. 51 1, 53 0 (1 98 5); N ixon v. Fitzgerald, 45 7 U .S. 73 1, 74 2-4 3 (1 98 2); E m pre ss C asino v . B lagojevic h , N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 , 20 11 W L 71 0467, at* 5 ( 7th C ir. M ar. 2, 2011 ). T h is i nc lud es interlocu tory orde rs d e ny i ng c l a i ms o fs o v e r e i g n i mmun i t y u n d e rth e F S I A. R ush-Pres byte ri an-St. Luke’s M ed. Ctr. v. Hel le nic R epubl ic, 877 F. 2d 574, 57 6 n. 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89 ); Segniv. Com m e r ci al O ff iceof Spain , 816 F.2d 344 , 347 (7th C ir. 1987). I t i s tr u e t h at Segni a nd Rus h Pr e s b yt e r i an c o nc e r ne d a f or ei gn st ate ’ s j u r i s di c t i on al i m m unity fro m sui t under14 N o. 08

- 2805

In full, 28 U .S. C
. § 16 04 p ro v id es: 6 Subj ec tt o e xi s t i ng i nt er nat i ona l ag re em en t s t o w hich the U nit ed Stat es i s a party atthe ti m e of enactm ent of thi s A ct a foreigns t at e s hal l be i m m une fro m the j ur i s di c t i on of the c ourt s ofth e Un i t e d S t a t e s a nd o fthe S t a t e s e x c e pt as prov ided in s ect ions 1605 t o 1607 ofthi s chapter. 28 U
. S. C. § 1 604, not attachm ent i m m u n ity under § 1609
. 6 But t he F i fthCi r cui t ha s he l d tha t th e den i alo fa tt ac hmen t i mm u n i t y u n d e r § 1 6 0 9 o fth e F S I A ma y b e i mm edi ate l y a pp eal ed und erthe col l ate ra l

- or der doct rine, FG Hem isph e r eAs s oc s . v. Répub l i q uedu Congo , 45 5 F
. 3d 57 5, 58 4 (5t h C ir. 20 06 ), an d w e a gr ee w ith th is s en sib le concl usi on. There i s no r eas on the co l l ate ra l

- or der doctrine sh o ul d a ppl y a ny di ffer en tly i n c as es r ai singthe att achm ent i m m unity o ff or ei gn- sta te proper ty und er § 1 609 than i n case s r ai si ng f or ei gn- sta te j uri sdic ti onal im m u n it y un d er § 1604. Th e FSI A prote cts foreign soverei gns fro m co urt i ntrusi ons on thei r i m m un ity i n i ts var i ous a spects , and i nter l ocuto ryappeali s a pp ro pri ate regar dle ss ofwh i ch f or m o fi m m unity i s a t s tak e. Because the di str i ct c ourt ’ s g ener al

- ass et disc ove ryo rder effecti vel y r ejected I ra n’s cl ai m o fat tachm ent i m m unity und er§ 1609 , we have j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew i t under th e c olla te ra l-ord er d oc tr in e. T he qu estion of app ell ate j urisd iction ov er the cou rt’s ear l i ero rderi s t ri cki er . That o rder, t oo , had the effect of d e n y i n ga c l ai m ofa t t a c h me n ti mmun i t y u n d e r th e F S I A. T he district cou rt held that § 1609 im m un ity i s an affi r m at i ve de fen se that c an be as se r te d o nl y b y theN o. 08

- 2805 15 f o r ei g n s o ve r ei g n i ts el f

. Up to tha t poi nti n the l i ti g at i o n, th e m us eu m s wer e adv an cingthe c l ai m o fa tt ac hm en t i m m uni ty, a nd b ec au se I r anha d no t appe ar ed, the c ou rt ’s o rd er effe c tiv ely st rip p ed th e c olle c tio n s o f th eir st at u to ry im m u n ity . Th e c ou rt ’s e ar lier o rd er t h u s falls wi th i n the s co pe o fthe c o l l at er al- orde r do ct r i ne a nd w as i m m edi ate l y a pp eal abl e. B u t o rd er s im m ed iat ely ap p ea lab le u n d er t h e c olla te ra lor der doct rine ar e “ fi naldeci si ons” und er28 U
. S. C. § 1 291, and subj ect to excepti ons not appli cabl e her e, m ust be appeal ed w i thi n 30 days o fentry. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a )(1) (A ); 28 U .S.C . § 21 07 (a); O tis v
. Ci ty of Chi cago , 29 F. 3d 1159 , 11 66- 67 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) (en banc)

. Rather than fi l i n g an im m edi ate appeal, the m useum s a ske d the c ourtto cer ti fy th e o rderf ori nter l ocuto ryappeal u n d e r § 1 2 9 2 ( b )
. T h i s w a s u n n e c e s s a r y, f o r r e a s o n s we w i l lexpl ai n i n a m om en t. I n the m eanti m e I ra n appe ar ed, b ec o m i ngthe l ea d de fen d an t, an d the f o cus s hi ft e d t o di s c o v e r y di s pu t e s . T he § 1 2 92( b) mo t i o n a pparently g ot l osti n the shuffl e. A l th ough the m oti on w as fu lly b rie fed , th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n ’t a d d re ss it u n til aft er thi s a pp ealwas fi l ed; atthatpoi nt the co urt sim p ly dism i sse d i t a s m oo t. I n Weir v. P rop st, 9 1 5 F
. 2 d 28 3, 28 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) , we “c lar if[ied ] th e re lat ion sh ip be tw ee n th e c olla te ra lo r der d o ct r i ne a nd s ec ti o n 1 29 2(b) c er ti fi ca ti o n in the r e c u r r e n ts e t t i n go fa p p e a l s f r o m d e n i a lo fi mmu n i t y . ” We ex p lai ne d th at a § 1292 (b) certifi cation is u n n eces sary for ana ppea lunde r the c o l l at er al

- o r derdo ct r i ne ; o r der s d en yin g im m u n ity are “a p p ea lab le

— wi th o ut an y o f the16 N o. 08

- 2805 ri gam ar ol e invol ved i n a 1292(b) appeal

— und erse cti on 129 1 , b y vir tu e of M i t ch e l l v. Fo rs yt h. ” Id. W e a lso sa id that a r equest for § 1292 ( b) cer ti fi cati on “ m ay not be us e d t o c i r c umv e nt the t i me l i mi t a t i o ns o n fi l i ng an appeal under s ecti on 1 291. ” Id. The “deadlines i n Rule 4( a) f orap p ea ls i n ci vi lcas es apply to al lappeal abl e o rder s, i nc l udi ngc o l l at er alo r der s, spe ci fi ca l l y o r der s den y i ng i m m unity, . . . [ and] [ i ] f t he deadl i ne i s m i sse d, the o rder i s no t a pp eal abl e. ” Id. at2 86
. I fth ato cc ur s, “ [ t] he de fen dantmus tthe n wa i tu nt i la no the r a pp e a l ab l e o rder ( nor m al l y, the fi nalj ud gm ent) i s e nter ed, upon appeal ofwh i ch he c an chal l enge any inter l ocuto ryo rderthat has no t be com e m oo t. ” Id. W e r ei te r at ed th i s po i ntin O ti s , al though in so m ew hat m ore s w eepi ng te rm s: “[ A ] l i ti gant enti tl ed to appeal under the co l l ate ra lo rd er doctr i ne m ust a ct w i thi n 30 days a nd i fthi s t i m e e xpir es w i th ou t a pp eal m ust wai t unti l the fi nal j ud gm ent to pu rs ue the i ssue. ” 2 9 F
. 3d at1 16 7. Thi s pass ag e i n O tis r el i ed o n Weir an d shoul d be r ead with the ea rl i ero pini on. The f ai l ure to tim ely ap p ea l a n im m u n ity ord er u n d er th e c olla te ra lor der doctr i ne does not necess ar i l y postpon e revi ew u n til th e e n d o fth e c as e; it p os tp on es rev iew u n til anothe r appeal abl e o rderi s e nter ed. Thi s wil lusual l y b e th e fina l j u d gm en t, b u t no t alw ay s. A n d h er e, th er e is “another appeal abl e o rder, ” Wei r, 91 5 F
. 2d at 286, not th e fi na lj udg m en t, tha t ha s pr o vi ded th e ne xto p p ortuni ty f orr evi ew . The di str i ct c ourt ’ s g ener al

- ass et disc o v e r yo r d e r r ej e c t e d I r a n ’ s c l a i m o fs o v e r e i g n i mm u n it y, an d I ran ’s ti m ely app eal of that o r de r p e r mitsN o. 08

- 2805 17

The m useum s ci te U ni t ed Sta t es v. M ich el l e’s Lounge , 39 F. 3d 7 68 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94 ) , as s uppor t for the pr opos i t i on thatthe cou rt’ s earlier o r d er m ay b e rev iew ed w ith Ira n’s t im ely inter locu tor y ap p eal o f the later co llat e r a l o rd er. Bu t M ic h elle ’s Lounge s im ply held thatan unap pealed col lat eral ord er can b e r ev ie w e d f o l lo w in g th e e n tr y o f fin a l ju d g m en t, id. at 692, an uncontroversi al prop osi ti on not ati ss ue in th is case
. M i chell e’s Lou n ge do es n o t add res s the preci se quest ion presen ted her e: W he the r a co llatera l ord er th at is no t tim ely app eal ed is revi ved fo r review w hen a t im el y app eal i s taken f rom a l atercol lat eral order. re vi ew o fthe ear l i er

— and cl osel y r el ate d

— i m m unity dec i si o n. 7 Thi s co nc l us i o n fi nds s upport in de ci si o ns fr o m the Thir d and Fi fth Ci rcui ts. Se e In re M ontgom ery C ounty, 215 F. 3d 367, 37 2 ( 3d Cir

. 20 00) ( quoti ng Wei r ’ s s tat em enttha twh e n a c o l l a t e r a lo r de r i s n o tt i mel y a pp e a l e d,

“ [ t ] he de fe nd a ntmus tthe n wa i tu nt i la no the r a ppe a l ab l e o r de r ( no r mal l y, the f i nal j ud g men t ) i s e nt e r e d, up on ap p eal ofw hich he can cha ll en ge an y i nt erlocuto ry or d er th at h as n otbe c om e m oo t” ); Keny a tta v . M o o re, 744 F.2d 1179, 1186-87 (5th C ir. 1984) (int erlocuto ry appeal thati s n ot ti m el y purs ued can be re vi ved upon en try of fi na l j ud gm en t or som e othe r app ealable order); but cf. M ille L a cs Ba nd of Chipp ewa Indians v. M innes ota , 48 F
. 3 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 5 ( 8 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( de c i di ngn o tt o r evi ew earli er orde r s o f th e d istri ct cou rt

— w hethero r not they fel lwi th i n the c o l l at er al

- o r derdo ct r i ne

— on inte rlocutory review of a later injun ct io n be cau se th e earli er orders w er e n ott i m ely ap p ea led an d w er e n otine x tr ica b ly18 N o. 08

- 2805

Iran’ s app earance d id not m oot the ear li er or der. I ran ent ered 8 the c as e onl y be c aus e the di s t ri c tc ou rt r efus ed t o c ons i der the quest ion of § 1609 i m m unity unles s Iran appeared and rai se d it
. Ir an’ s app earance , i n turn, ex posed it to th e general

- ass et disc overy request s and the court’ s order thati t com ply. Ir an would l i ke to withdra w f ro m thi s c as e buti s i nhibi t ed fro m doi ng s o by the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s ho l di ng that§ 16 09 at t ac hm en t i m m uni t y m us tbe as s er t ed by the f or ei gn s ove re i gn. Thi s i s a s uffi c i en tc ont i nui ng i nt er es tt o s uppo rt anon goi ng li ve controvers y abo ut the court ’ s earl ie r order. link ed to the inj un ction issu e t h at w as p rop erly before th e cou rt). M or eov er , in the parti cul arci rcum sta nces ofthi s ca se, perm i tting r evi ew o fthe firs t i m m unity o rderas parto f I r a n’ s a pp e a lfr o m t he s e c o nd r e fl e c t s s o un d a pp e l l ate m an ag ement, no t anunwa r r an te d e xpa ns i o n o fthe s c o p e o fc o l l a t e r a l

- o r d e r r e v i e w. B o th o r d e r s r a i s e i mpo r ta ntand c l o se l y r el at ed que st i o ns r eg ar di ngthe sc o pe an d o per at i o n o fthe FSIA
. Ques ti o ns o ff o r ei g nsov er ei gn i m m unity ar e sensi ti ve, and l ower- court m ista k es abo utthe a va i l ab i l i tyo fi m m uni tyc anha ve f o r ei g npol i cy i m pli cati ons. M or e par ticular l y her e, the dist ri ct cour t’s re fusalto co nsi der § 16 09 att achm ent i m m unity w i tho uta n a pp e a r a nc e b y the f o r e i g n s t a t e p r e c i pi tat ed I ra n’s appeara n c e an d l ed dir ectly t o the i m posi ti on o f the g ener al

- ass et disc ove ryo rderag ai nst i t. The l att er or d er w a s tim ely ap p ea led , an d th e t w o s u b st an tia lly o ve r l ap. Re vi ew o fb o tho r der s no w w i l lc l ar i fy the

8 rest of the li tiga t ion. I ran ’s ti m ely app eal ofthe cou rt’s gen eral-asset d iscovery ord er brings up the cou rt’sN o. 08

- 2805 19

The S u p re m e Cour t ’ s r ec en tdec i s i on i n O rt iz v. Jor dan , 131 9 S. Ct. 884 ( 20 11 ), d oe s no t affect ou r con clu si o n . T he issue in O rt iz was whethe r the den i al ofa m otio n f or s um m ar y j udgm ent based on qualifie d im m unity coul d b e appea led fo llo w in g a fu ll t ri a l o n th e m er its
. Id
. at88 8- 89
. The Sup rem e Court s aid “no. ” Id
. at89 3. The den i al of a m ot i on f or s umm a r y j udg m e ntba s e d o n q ua l i fi e d i m m un i t y m ay be im m ediate ly appe a le d und er M itch ellv. F or sy th , 472 U.S. 5 1 1 (19 8 5 ), su b jec t to th e l im ita tio n s o f John son v . Jones , 515 U
. S. 304 ( 1995) ; alt ernat ivel y, the defe nse m ay be re n ew ed and l i t i gat ed at t ri al

. The Cour the l d i n O rt iz thatthe f ail ure t o t ake ani m m edi at e appe al ofthe den i al o f im m uni t y on s um m ar y j udgm en tpr ec l udes r evi ew ofthator der f ollo wing a trial o n th e m erits; to o b tain rev iew of an im m u nity claim i n thats i tu atio n, the defen dantm us tpr es er ve i tatt ri al i n a m ot i on for j udgm en tas a m at t erofl aw underRul e 50 ( b) of th e F ed er a l R u le s o f C iv il P ro ce d u re . O rt iz , 13 1 S. Ct. at 892- 93. e a r l i e r o r de r de ny i ng§ 1 6 0 9 a t t a c hme nti mm unit y un l e s s I r a n a pp e a r e d. 9

B . A ttac h m en t Im m u n ity U n d er § 16 09 of th e F S IA O n th e m erits this app eal c h a llenge s the district cou rt’s i nter preta ti on o fthe FSI A
. Our r evi ew i s de no vo. A utote ch Te ch s . LP v. Int egral Re s e ar ch & D e v. Corp. , 49 9 F.3d 737, 749 (7th C ir. 2007). The FS I A was enact ed i n 197 6, but the doct rine o f f or ei gn- sov er ei gn i m m unity deve l oped at com m on l aw ve ry ea rly in ou r n at ion ’ s h i s t or y. Samantarv. Yous uf , 130 S. C t. 22 78 , 228 4 (2 01 0); Rep ub l i c o f th e P hi l l ipi ne s v.20 N o. 08

- 2805 P im entel , 55 3 U .S. 85 1, 86 5 (2 00 8); Rep ub l i c of Aus t r i a v. A ltm ann , 5 4 1 U. S
. 6 7 7, 6 8 8

- 8 9 ( 2 0 0 4 )
. “ F o r mo r e tha n a centur y a nd a ha lf, the Un i ted S tat es gener al l y g ra nted f o r ei g n s o ve r ei g ns c o m pl et e i m m uni tyfr o m suit i n the cour ts ofthi s co untry. ” Ver l i nde n B. V. v. Ce nt r al Ba nk of N iger ia , 4 6 1 U .S. 480, 486 (1983). Ch iefJ us tice M arsh all ’s op ini o n in The Sc hoon e rExch angev. M cF addon , 7Cr a nc h 11 6 (1 81 2), ar tic u lat ed th e g en er al p rin c ip l e, an d “[a ]lth o ug h th e na r r o w h o l ding of The Sc hoon e rExch ange w as onl y that the courts o fthe U ni ted S tat es l ack j uri sd ict ion ov er an arm ed sh ip of a f o re ign st at e fo u n d in o urpo r t, tha t o pi ni o n c ame t o b e re g ar ded as e xt en di ng vir tu al a b so lu te im m u n ity t o fore ign so ve re ign s.” V erlind en , 461 U
. S. a t 486. The doctr i ne “i s pre m i sed up on the ‘ perfect equality and abso l ute ind ependence o fs o ve r ei gn s, an d th[ e] c o m m o n int er es t i n i m pel l i ng them to m utual i nter cour se. ’ ” P im entel , 553 U
. S. at86 5 ( quoti ng Sc hoon e rExcha nge, 7 C ra n c h at13 7); see also Nat ’ l Ci ty Bank of

N
. Y. v. Repub l i c of

Chi na , 34 8 U .S. 3 56, 36 2 ( 1955 ) ( For ei gn- sov er ei gn i m m unity i s ba sed o n “r eci proca lse l f

- i nter est[ ] and re spect f orthe ‘ pow er an d dign ity’ of the forei gn sovereign.”). F o r ei g n- so ve r ei g n i m m uni ty“ i s a m at te r o fg r ac e an d comi tyo n the pa r t o fthe Uni te d S ta te s, ” no t a co ns ti tu
ti onaldoctr i ne. V

erlind en , 461 U
. S. at48 6. A ccor dingl y, fede r alc o ur ts “co ns i st en tly . . . de fer r ed to the de ci si o ns ofth e pol i ti calbr anches

— i n pa r ti cul ar, tho se o fthe Ex ecuti ve Branch

— on wh etherto ta ke j uri sdic tio n o ve r a ct i o ns a g ains t forei g n s o ve r ei g ns a nd the i r i ns trum en ta litie s.” Id. E ve n tu ally , a “ tw o-s te p p ro c ed u re d ev eloped f orr esolvin g a f or ei gn st ate ’ s cl ai m o fso ver ei gnN o. 08

- 2805 21 im m u n ity , typ ica lly as se rt ed on be h alf ofse ize d ve ss els .” Samantar, 130 S. Ct. at22 84. The di plo m ati c r epres entati ve ofthe f oreig n s tate would r equest that the S tat e Dep ar tm ent i ssue a “ sugge sti on o fim m unity. ” Id. I fthe St ate Departm ent di d so, the cour t would s urr ender j uri sdic ti on. Id. I n the abse nce o fa sugge sti on o f im m u n ity , ho w ev er , th e c ou rtw ou ld “ ‘d ec id e fo r its elf whe the r the r e qu i s i t e s f o r s uc h i mm un i t y e xi s t e d. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng E x p a rte R epu blic o f P eru , 318 U
. S. 578, 587 (1943 ))
. To make thi s dec i si o n, the c o ur t “inqui r ed ‘ w he th erthe gr o un d o fi mm un i t y i s o ne wh i c h i ti s the e s t ab l i s hed p olic y of th e [St at e D ep ar tm en t] t o re c og n ize .’ ” Id. ( quoti ng Rep ub l i c of

M exi co v. Hof

f m an , 3 24 U
. S. 30, 36 (1945)). The proce ss thus entai l ed substa nti al j ud i ci al d eference to the Exe cut i ve Br an ch w he th erthe S ta te De par tment i ssued a sugge sti on o fi m m unity o r not. Inp ra c tic e t h e St at e D ep ar tm en t w ou ld u su ally re quest i m m unity in al lact i ons aga i nst fri endlyf oreign so ve re ign s. Samantar, 13 0 S
. Ct. at 22 85 ; V erlind en , 461 U
. S. at486. T ha t ch an g ed i n 1 95 2 when th e S ta te De par tment adopted a new “re str i cti ve” theo ryof f or ei gn- sov er ei gn im m u n ity
. Samantar, 13 0 S . C t. at 22 85 ; V erlind en , 461 U
. S. at 486. The “Ta te Letter ” (J ack B. Tate, A cti ng Lega l Ad vi so r t o the D ep ar tmento fS ta te , wri tingt o the A tto rneyGenera l ) announced thatf or ei gn- sov er ei gn i m m unity would thenceforw ar d be “ confi ned to sui ts i nv o l v i ngthe f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n’ s p ub l i c ac t s , a nd [ wo ul d] not exte nd to cases arising out of a fo r e ig n state’s str i ctl y c om m er ci alact s. ” V erlind en , 461 U
. S. at48 7. This pol i cy shi ft was notco difi ed in to la w , and i ts i m ple m entat i on g ave ri se to som e pr acti caland pol i ti cal22 N o. 08

- 2805 diffi cul ti es as the S tat e Depart m en t str uggl ed to m ai ntai n a consi ste nt sta nd ar d for evaluati ng gran ts o f im m u n ity for fo r e i gn so ve re ign s. Samantar, 13 0 S
. Ct. at 22 85 ; Alt m ann , 54 1 U .S. at 6 90 -91 ; V erlind en , 461 U
. S. at 487
. I n 197 6 Congr ess passe d the F SI A f or the purpose of p roviding a clear, un iform set of st an d ard s to govern f o r ei g n- so ve r ei g n i m m uni tyde te r m i na ti o ns . Underthe FS I A , co urts , notthe St ate Departm ent, deci de c l ai m s o f f or ei gn- sov er ei gn i m m unity a ccor ding t o the pr i nci ple s se t fo rt h in t h e s ta tu te
. See 28 U
. S. C. § 1 602 ( congr ess i onal f i n d in gs an d d ec lar at ion of p u rp os e); Sa m a nta r, 130 S. C t. a t 2 2 85 ; A ltm a nn , 54 1 U .S. at 6 91 ; V erlind en, 461 U
. S. at48 7- 88. F o r the mo s tp a r t, the F S I A c o di fi e d the r e s t ri cti ve the o r y o fs o v e r e i g n i mm un i t y a nn o un c e d in the Tate L et te r. Sa m a nta r, 13 0 S
. C t . a t 2 28 5; A ltm a nn , 541 U
. S. at 69 1; V erlind en, 461 U
. S. at48 8. The Ac tc o n t a i n s t wo pri m ar y for m s o fi m m unity. S ecti on 1604 provi des j uri sd ict ion al im m u n ity from su it: “[A ] fo r e i gn st at e s h all be i m m une fr o m the j ur i sdi ct i o n o fthe c o ur ts o fthe U ni ted S tat es and o f t he S tat es” exce pt as othe rwis e provi ded i n the A ct. 28 U
. S. C. § 1 604. S ecti on § 16 09, th e pr o vi si o n a t i ss ue he r e, c o di fi es the rel at ed co m m o nl aw pr i nc i pl e th ata f o r ei g n s ta te ’ s pr op ertyi n the Uni te d S ta te s i s i m m une fr o m a tt ac hm en t an d e xe cut i o n: Subj ect to exi sting i ntern at ionalag re em ents to w hi ch the Unite d Sta tes i s a par ty at the t i m e o fenact m ent o f thi s Act the proper ty i n theU nite d State s of a f oreign st ate s hal l b ei m m unef

r om attach m e ntar r e s tan d exe cu t i on exc ept a s pro vid ed in section s 1 61 0 a nd 1 61 1 o f th is cha pter.N o. 08

- 2805 23 Id. § 1609 ( em phasi s a dd ed ). T h e t er m “for ei gn st ate ” i ncl ud es “a p ol i ti calsubdi vi si on o fa f or ei gn st ate o r an age ncy o r i nstr um ental i ty ofa f or ei gn st ate
. ” Id. § 1603 (a). I n kee p ing w ith th e restrict ive theory of f oreign-soverei g n i m m unity, the F S I A ca r ve s o utc er ta i n e xc ept i o ns to the j ur i s di c t i o na li mm un i t y o ff o r e i g n s t a t e s de s c r ibed i n § 1 604 ( see §§ 1 605-1 60 7) a nd the i m m uni tyo ff o r ei g nsta te property fr om at tachm ent a nd exec uti on descr ibed i n § 16 09 ( see§§ 16 10, 16 11)
. A ccor dingl y, under § 1604 f or ei gn sta tes and thei r age nci es and in strum ental i ti es a r e i mmu n e fr o m s u i t u n l e s s s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n a pp lies

. U nd er§ 1609 f or ei gn- sta te proper ty i n the U ni ted S ta te s i s l i k e wi s e i mmun e fr o m a t t a c h me n to r e x e c uti o n un l es s ane xc ept i o n a ppl i es. U nde r the e xc ept i o ns l i ste d i n §§ 1610 and 16 11 , p ro pertyo w ned by a f or ei gn sta te’ s instr um ental i ti es i s g ener al l y m ore a m enabl e t o att ach m en t than proper ty own ed by the for ei gn st ate its elf. See id
. § 16 10 ( a) ( ex ce pti o ns appl i cabl e to f ore i g nst at e pr o per ty ) , ( b) ( ex ce pti o ns appl i cabl e to fo r ei g nin st ru m en ta l ity p ro p er ty ); s e eal s o R ES TATE MENT (T HIRD ) OF THE F OR EI GN R ELA TION S L AW O F T HE U .S. § 46 0 c m t. b. I n th eir un d erlyi ng suit against I r a n , the p lai nt iffs est abl i shed j uri sdic ti on vi a § 16 05( a) ( 7) , an ex c ep ti on t o j uri sdic ti onalso ver ei gn i m m u ni ty f oract i ons “i n w hi ch m oneydam age s a re so ught ag ai nst a f or ei gn st ate f or perso nali nj ury orde ath that was cause d by a n act of tor ture , extr aj ud i ci alki l l i ng, ai rcr aft s abot age , hos tag e ta kin g, or t h e p ro vis ion o f m at er ial su p p or t o r re so u rc es . . . f o r s ucha n a ct
. ” 28 U.S. C. § 1 60 5( a) ( 7) ( r epe al ed an d r e e n a c t e d a s § 1 6 0 5 A( a ) ( 1) , P u b

. L
. No
. 1 1 0

- 1 8 1 , D i v . A,24 N o. 08

- 2805 Tit l e X, § 1 083( a) ( 1) , (b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) , J an. 28 , 20 08, 12 2 S tat
. 33 8, 3 41)
. In the e xe cut i o n pr o ce eding, the y r el i ed o n the f ol l owing excepti on t o § 1 609 att achm ent i m m unity: ( a) The pro perty in t h e Un i ted S tat es ofa f or ei gn sta te
. . . used f ora com m er ci alact i vi ty i n the U ni ted St at es , sh all n ot b e im m u n e from at ta c h m en t in a id o fe xe cut i o n, o r fr o m e xe cutio n, upo n a j udg m en t en te re d by a c ou rtof th e U n ite d Sta te s or of a St at e . . . if

— ( 7) the j udg m en t r el ates to a c l ai m f o r whi chthe f o r e i g n st a t e i s n o ti mmun e u n d e r s e c t i o n 1 6 0 5 A, r eg ar dl es s o fwhethe r the pr o per tyi s or w as i nv o l v e d wi th the a c tu po n whi c h the c l a i m i s b a s e d. Id. § 1610(a)(7)
. Th ey also clai m ed that I ran ’s assets are att achabl e under § 2 01 ofthe TRIA as “bl ock ed ass ets ” of a terrorist party. Pu b. L
. N o. 107-297, Title I I, § 201(a), 116 Stat
. 2322, 2337 (2002). The d ist rict co urt did notaddress the appli cabi l i ty of ei thero fthes e e xcepti ons. Instea d, th e co urt hel d that th e attac hm en t im m un ity con ferred by § 1609 is person al to th e f o r ei g n st at e, whi ch m us t appe ar an d affi rm ati vel y pl ead i t. W hen I ra n m ade i ts appearance and speci fi cal l y r ai sed § 1609 , the cour t co nti nued to si de s t e p the i mm un i t y que s t i o n a nd i ns t e a d o r de re d gener al

- ass et disc ove ryr ega rdi ng al l of Ira n ’s a ss et s in th e Uni te d S ta te s, no t j us t th e th r ee muse um c o ll ectio ns the pl ai nti ff s i denti fi ed in the at tachm ent c i tat i ons. Both ofthes e o rder s a re i ncom pat ible w i th the te xt, st ructur e, an d hi st o r y o fthe F S I A, a nd a l so c o nfl i ctw i thr el ev an t prece dent. W e a dd re ss the s eco nd o rderfi rs t.N o. 08

- 2805 25 1. The gene ral
- asset

di scov ery o rder Exe cut i o n pr o ce eding s ar e g o ve r ne d b y Rul e 69 ( a) o fthe Feder alR u les ofCi vi lPro cedure and “m ust a ccor d w i th th e pr o ce dur e o fthe s ta te wher e th e co ur t i s l o ca te d, b ut a federa lst atute go ver ns to the extent i t ap p lies. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 69( a) ( 1)
. Dis cove ryr equests i n ai d ofexec uti on m ayb e m ade pur su an t to e i th er the fede r alr ul es o r the c or re sp on d in g ru les o ft h e foru m st at e, id. R ule 69(a)(2) , but ei therway, the FS I A pl ai nl y a pp l i es and l i m i ts the di sco ver y pr oce ss. As a g en er almatt er, i t i s wi dely r ecogni ze d tha t th e FSIA ’s i m m un ity provisions aim to protec t forei gn soverei gns fro m the burdens o fl i ti gat i on, i ncl ud i ng the co st an d ag gr av at ion of d isc ov er y. See P im entel , 553 U
. S. at86 5; D ol eFo od C o . v . Pat r i cks on , 53 8 U .S. 46 8, 47 9 (2 00 3); Rus hPre s b yt e r i an, 87 7 F .2d at57 6 n .2; Kel l y v . Sy r i a S he l l Pe t r ol e u m D e v. B. V. , 213 F.3d 84 1, 84 9 (5 th C ir. 20 00 ); Forem ostM cKe s s on, Inc . v. Islam i c Rep ub l i c of Ir an , 90 5 F
. 2d 438, 44 9 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1 9 9 0 )
. T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n tw i th th e S u p r e me Court’ s t re atm ent o fo theri m m unit i es

— f o r e x a mpl e, t he quali fi ed i m m unity o fgo ver nm entalo ffi c ials. Se e, e . g. , A shcr oft v. Iq b al , 12 9 S
. Ct. 19 37, 19 53 ( 2009 ) ( “The basic thrusto fthe quali fi ed-i m m unity doct rine i s t o fre e o ffi c i a l s fr o m t he co nce r ns o fl i t i g a t i o n, i nc l ud i nga v o i dance o fdi sr up ti ve disc ove ry . ” ( quotati on m ar ks om i tted) )
. A pote nti al di ffi cul ty ar i ses , however, wh en an ass er ted exce pti on t o i m m unity tu rn s on di sputed f acts
. The FS IA d oes notdi re ctl y a dd re ss the e xtent t o w hi ch a j ud gm ent cre dit or m ay pu rs ue disc ove ry to estab l i sh th atthe pr o per tyhe i s s eeking t o a tt ac h fi ts wi th i n o ne26 N o. 08

- 2805

T he on ly sectio n in the F SIA tha t d irectly ad d re sse s d is- 10 c ove ry i s 28 U. S. C. § 16 05 ( g)
. Tha tpr ovi s i on al low s the Attorn ey Gene ra l , unde r c er t ai n c i rc um s t anc es , t o s t ay any re que s tf or di s c ove ry a g ain s tthe Uni t ed S t at es i n a ny ac t i on b ro u g ht aga i ns ta f or ei gn s t at e on the bas i s ofthe

“ te rr o ri sm ” ex ce p tio n to § 1 6 0 4 , as d efi n ed in § 1 6 0 5 (a )(7). ofthe sta tutory e xcepti on s to the att achm ent i m m unity confer re d by § 16 09. 10 I n Arr i b a L td. v. Pe t r ol e os M exi ca nos , th e F ifth C irc u it aptl y t oo k no te ofthe “te ns ion b etw een per m i tting di scove ryto subst anti ate exce pti ons to sta tutory for ei gn sov er ei gn i m m unity a nd protecti ng a sov er ei gn’ s o r sov er ei gn ag ency’s l egi ti m ate cl ai m to i m m unity fro m d isc ov er y.” 96 2 F .2d 52 8, 53 4 ( 5 t h C ir. 19 92 ). Arr i b a i nvol ved § 1604 j ur i s di ct i onal i mmu n i t y, b u t th e s a me te ns i o n i s pr es en t when at t ac hm e nti m m unity under § 1 609 i s at sta ke. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o or der na t i o nwi de di s c o v e r y o fa l lI r a ni a n a s s e t s f a i l s t o a ppr ec i at e this basi c po i nt
. Tha t m uchi s ev i den t i n the m agistrate j ud ge’s rationale f or the d iscovery ord er: By i nqui r i ngabo utI r an ’ s as se ts g en er al l y, the Pl aintiffs, and ultim ately the C ou rt, w il l be a b le to d eterm in e w h ich of th os e a ss e t s fa ll w ith inth e d om ain o fa ss et s th ata r e amenabl e to a tt ac hm en t an d e xecu tio n u n d e r t h e F SIA an d T R IA . Th e C ou rtw ill not l i m i t the Pl ai nti ff s’ di sco ver y r equests to those cat eg o r i es o fa ss et s th ata r e r ea ch ab l e unde r the FS I A and TRIA, al l owing I ra n to be the j ud ge ofwh i ch ass ets ar e i m m une bef or e pr ovi ding any di sco ver y.N o. 08

- 2805 27 That de term i nati on g oes to the m er i ts ofthe case and w i l lbe m ade bythe Court al one. Rubi n v . Islam i c Rep ub l i c of Ir an , No
. 0 3 C 9 3 7 0 , 2 0 0 8 WL 1923 21, at* 15 ( N
. D. I l l

. J an. 18 , 20 08 ). T h e di str i ct j ud ge adopted thi s r eas oni ng i n to to. This approach i s inconsi ste n t w i th the pre sum pti ve i mm un i t y o f f o r e i g n- s t a t e pr o pe r t y un de r § 1 6 0 9
. As a hi st o r i ca lmatt er, “ [ p] r i o r t o the e na ct m en t o fthe F S I A, the U nited States gav e absolu t e im m un ity to forei gnsovereig n s fro m t h e ex ec u tio n of j u d gm en ts . Th is ru le re quir ed pla i nti ff s who succes sfully ob ta i ned a j ud gm en t ag a in s t a f oreign sovereign to rel y on volun tary re paym en t by that St ate
. ” A utote ch , 49 9 F
. 3d at749
. The FS I A “co difi ed thi s pra c ti ce b y e stabl i shi ng a gener al pr i nc i pl e o fi m m uni tyf o r fore i g n s o ve r ei g ns fr o m e xe c ut i o n o fj ud g men t s , ” s ubj e c tt o c e r t a i n l i mi t e d e xc e ptio n s. Id. T h e s ta tu to ry sc h em e t h u s “ m od ified th e ru le bar ring exe cuti on agai nst a f or ei gn st ate ’ s pro pertyby

‘ parti allyl o wer i ngthe b ar r i ero fi m m uni tyfr o m e xe cutio n, so as to m ak e th is i m m u n ity c on for m m or e c los ely w i th the pro vi sions on j uri sdic ti onali m m unity. ’ ” Id. ( se co nd e m pha si s o m i tt ed) ( quo tingCo n n . B a n ko f C o mm e r ce v. Rep ub l i c of

Congo , 309 F.3d 240, 25 2 (5th C ir. 2002)). I m po r ta nt l y he r e, the ex cept i o ns t o a tt ac hm en t i m m unity ar e narr ower than the excepti ons to j u risdicti onali m m unity: “Altho ugh ther e i s s om e o ver l ap be twe enthe e xc ept i o ns t o j ur i sdi ct i o na li m m uni tya nd thos e fori m m unity fro m exec uti on a nd at tachm ent, th ere is no esc ap ing t h e f act th at th e latter are m ore narr owly d ra w n. ” Id. W e no te d i n Aut ot e ch th at“ [ t] he28 N o. 08

- 2805 FS IA sa ys th at im m u n ity fr om ex ec u tio n is w aiv ed on ly f orspeci fi c ‘ prop er ty
. ’ As a r es ul t, i n o r dert o de te r m i ne whethe r i m m uni tyfr o m e xe cu tion or a tt ac hm en t h as be en w aiv ed , th e p lain tiff m u st id en tify sp ec ific p ro pertyupon w hi ch i t i s t ry i ng to act
. ” Id. a t 7 5 0
. U nd er the F SI A “[ t] he o nl y way the co urt c an deci de w hether i t i s pr o pert o i ss ue the wri t [ o fa tt ac hm en t o r e xe cut i o n] i s i fi t know s which pro pertyi s t ar get ed. ” Id. In other w or ds, “[ a] co urt cannot gi ve a par ty a bl an k c heck w hen a f or ei gn so ver ei gn i s invol ved. ” Id. As o urdi sc us si o n in Aut ot e ch m ak es c l ea r, § 1 60 9 o fthe F S I A co di fi es the c o m m o n- l aw r ul e th atpr o per ty of a f or ei gn st ate i n the U ni ted S tat es i s presu m edi m m une fro m at tachm ent a nd exec uti on. T o ove rco m e the pre

su m pti o n o fi m m uni ty, the pl aint i ffm us t i den ti fy the par ti cul arf o r ei gn- st at e pr o per tyhe s ee k s to a tt ac h a nd th ene st ab l i shtha t i t f al l s wi thi n a s ta tu to r y e xc ept i o n. The di st r i ct co ur t’ s g en er al

- as se t di sc o ve r y o r der tur ns th i s pr es um pti ve i m m uni tyo n i ts h ead

. Ins te ad o fc o nfi ni ngthe pr oceedi ng s to the s pec i fi c pr o per tythe pl ainti ff s had i denti fi ed as potenti al l y s ubj ect to an exc ep ti on unde r the F S I A, the c o ur t g av e th e pl aint if fs a “ bl an k check” entitle m ent t o disc ove ryr ega rdi ng all I ra ni an asset s in the U nited States. Th is in v e r t s the statu tory schem e. Thre e o the r c i r c ui t s ha v e a ddr e s s e d the qu e s t i o n of disc ove ryi n the conte xt o fat tachm ent pr oce edings aga i nst f or ei gn- sta te proper ty i n the U ni ted St ate s u n der the F SI A , and al lhave ag re ed that th e co urt m ust p roceed narrow ly, in a m an ne r that resp ects the sta tu toryN o. 08

- 2805 29

I n A f

- C ap th e di s t ri c tc our tha d l i m i t ed di s c ove ry on 11 gr ounds unr el at ed t o the FSI A. T he N i nth Cir c ui taf fi rm ed a nd al s o c onc l uded thatthe di s c ove ry l i m i t at i ons wer e c ons i s t en t w ith t h e r eq u ir em en ts o f th e F S IA
. A f

- C ap, Inc. v. C hevron O verse as ( C ongo) Lt d. , 47 5 F .3d 10 8 0 , 10 9 6 (9t h C ir . 20 0 7 ). p re su m p tio n of im m u n ity a n d fo c u se s o n th e s p ec ific pr o per ty al l eg ed to be ex empt. The S ec o nd, F i fth, a nd N i nth Cir cui ts have re p ea ted an i denti calm ess age to th e d istri ct cou rts: “ ‘[ D ]i scov er y s h ou ld be ord ered circum spectl y a nd o nl y t o ver i fy a l l ega ti ons ofspecifi c f acts cruci alto an i m m unity dete rm i nati on. ’ ” EM Lt d. v. Rep ub l i c of

Arge nt i na , 47 3 F
. 3d 463, 4 86 (2 d C i r. 20 07) ( quoti ng Fi rs tCi ty, Te xas - Hous t on, N .A
. v. Raf i dai n Bank, 15 0 F .3d 17 2, 17 6 (2 d C ir. 19 98 )); C onn. B ank of C o m m er ce, 30 9 F.3 d at 2 60 n. 10 ( quoti ng A rr iba , 962 F.2d at53 4); AfCap, Inc . v. Che vron O vers e as ( Congo) Lt d. , 475 F
. 3d 1080 , 10 95

- 96 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( emp ha si s o m i tt ed) ( quo ting C onn. Ba nk of Co m m er ce, 30 9 F
. 3d at 260 n. 10)
. W e agr ee. 11 D isc overy or ders that ar e bro ad i n sco pe and thi n in foun d ation u njustifi ably sub j ect foreign states to u nw arr an te d l i ti gati o n c o st s an d i nt r us i ve i nqui r i es abo ut th ei r Am er i ca n-bas ed as se ts
. One o fthe pur po se s o fthe i m m unity c odi fi ed i n § 1 609 i s t o sh iel d fo re i gn st ate s fro m thes e bur dens. The pla i nti ff s no te that these deci si ons fro m o ther c i r c u i t s t o o kl a n g u a g e fr o m A rr iba , 9 62 F
. 2d at53 4, the Fi fth Ci rcu it c as e deal i ng with excepti ons to § 1 604 jurisdict ional im m un ity, and ad ap ted it t o t he c ont ex t of at t ac hmen t i m m unity under § 1 609. They c l ai m thatbr oader30 N o. 08

- 2805 disc ove rysho uld be ava i l abl e u nd er§ 1609 than § 1 604. Th i s a r g ume nt i s b a s e d o n the i r r e a di ng o f § 1 6 06 of the F SI A , wh ich p rovi des thati fan e xcepti on t o § 1 604 j u ris d ict ion al im m u n ity ap p lies , “th e fo re ign st at e s h all b e liab le in the sam e m anner and to the s am e e xtent a s a p ri vate i nd i v i du a lu nd e r l i k e c i r c ums t a nc e s . ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1606
. Th e pla in tiffs conte nd that once a court h as ex erci sed j uri sdic ti on o vera f or ei gn so ver ei gn and entered a j u d g me n ta g a i ns t i t, § 1 6 0 6 e n t i t l e s th e m t o th e s a me bro ad dis cove ryas any other l i ti gant see ki ng to exec ute on a j u d gm en t u n d er R u le 6 9(a ). Th e c rit i c a l e rro r in th is argu m en t is th at it m ixes th e scop e of l i ab i l i ty wi ththe scop e of exe cu t i on . A lth ou gh Iran m ay b e fo u n d liab le i n the s ame manne r a s an y o th erp ri va te de fen dan t, the opti ons f orexec uti ng a j ud gm en t rem ai n l i m i ted. That i s the poi nt of § 1 60 9. It i s t rue that §§ 1604 and 160 9 provi de differ ent ki nd s o fi m m unity t o f or ei gn so ver ei gns, bu t the re i s no reason to read § 1609 to all ow f or m ore i nt r us i ve di sc o ve r y tha n i ts § 1 60 4 co unt er part. T o the co nt r ar y, as we obs er ve d i n A utote ch , the e xcepti ons to § 1 60 9 a tt ac h m e n t im m u n ity are d ra w n m or e n ar ro w ly than the exce pti ons to § 1 604 j uri sdic ti onali m m unity. T h e p lain tiffs cit e t w o c as es a s s u p p or t fo r th e g en er alass et dis cove ryorder

. T he fi rs t i s R ich m a rk C o rp. v. Tim ber Falling Consultants , 959 F.2d 146 8 (9th C ir. 1992), w hi ch i nvol ved a contr act d i spute be tw een a n A m er i can c om p an y a n d B eijing E ve r B rig h t In d u st ria l C o., a com pany cont ro l l ed by the Peopl e’ s Republ i c o fChina. The A m er i can co m pany w on a d efault j ud gm ent a gainst Ever Bri ght o n a b re ach- of

- contrac t cl ai m and then soughtge ne ra ldi sco ver y in or der t o i denti fy EverN o. 08

- 2805 31

T he com m ercia l-activity excep tion in § 16 10 (b) allow s a 12 j ud gm ent cre ditor t o exe cute againstan y prop erty ofan agency or instr u m e nta lity o f a foreig n state in the U nited States so l on g a s the a ge nc y ori ns t r umen t a l it y ha s be e n f ou nd t o ha ve e n g a g ed in co m m er ci a l a ct iv ity . O n th e o th er h a n d , § 1 6 1 0 (a ), the FS I A ex c ept i on i nvoke d i n thi s ca s e, al l ows ex ec ut i on againstthe prop erty ofa f or eign st ate in the United Stat es o n ly if t hatpr ope rty h a s b ee n u se d for co m m er ci a l a ct iv ity
. S ee A uto t ec h Tec hs. LP v. Integra l R es ea rc h & D ev. C orp. , 499 F. 3d 7 3 7, 74 9 -5 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ); R ESTA TEMENT (T HI RD ) OF T HE F ORE I GN R ELATI ONS L AW O F T HE U. S
. § 4 6 0 c m t
. b ( “ Fo r pu rpo s e s o fpos t-j udg m e nta t t a c hme nta nd e x e c ut i on, the [ FS I A] dra ws a s har p di s t inction be t weenthe pr ope rty ofs t at es an d th e p ro p er ty o f sta te in str u m en ta lit ie s . . . .”). Bri ght’ s a sse ts; the dist ri ct c ourtautho ri zed the disc ove ry . E v e r B r i g h ta p p e a l e d a n d th e N i n th C i r c u i ta ffi r med

. Ric hm ark i s distin g ui sh ab l e fr o m thi s ca se . Ev erBr i g ht w as an i nstr um ental i ty ofthe Peopl e’ s Republ i c o f C hin a, a nd the di sc o ve r y o r dera t i ss ue i n Ric hm ark was l i m i te d t o Ev erBr i g ht ’ s asset s. As we ha ve no te d, the i m m unit y e xcepti ons i n the FS I A f orpro pertyo w ned by an i n s t r u me n t a l i ty of a f or ei gn st ate ar e m uch bro ader th an the excepti ons f orpro pertyo w ned by the f or ei gn state i tself. See 28 U. S
. C. § 1 61 0( a) ( ex ce pti o ns t o i m m u-

12 ni ty of fo re i gn- sta te proper ty) , 16 10(b) ( excepti ons to im m u n ity f or fore ign -in st ru m en ta lity p ro p er ty ); see also A utote ch , 499 F.3d at74 9-5 0
. E ve nso , w e h eld in Aut ot e ch that a j ud gm ent c re dit orse eking t o in vok e a n ex ce pti o n t o § 1 60 9 i m m un itymustfi r sti den ti fy the p ro p er ty on w h ich it se ek s t o e x ec u te
. Id.32 N o. 08

- 2805

The R es tatem ent ofForei gn R el ati ons ex plains thatthe FSIA 13 pro vi des weak eri m m uni t y p ro t ec t i on f or the pr ope rty of f orei gn-s tat e i ns t r umen t a l i t i e s be c a us e “ i ns t r umen t a l it ie s engaged i n com m erc ial act ivit ie s are aki n to com m erc ial ente rpris es . ” R ESTA TEMENT (T HI RD ) OF THE L AW O F F O R EI GN R ELATI ONS OF THE U
. S. § 4 6 0 cm t. b. Bu t becaus e “the prim ary fun ction o f [f or eig n] sta tes is g ov ern m en t . . . , their a m en ab ility to post
-j u d g m ent att achm ent should be li m it ed to parti cular prop erty. ” Id. The pla in tiffs al so ci te Fi rs tCi ty, Te xas - Hous t on, N
. A. v. R a fidai n Bank, 1 5 0 F
. 3 d 1 7 2 , 1 7 7( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) , wh i ch affi rm ed an o rderper m i tting a j u d gm en t cr edi torto conduct ge nera ldi sco ver y a gainst Rafi dain Bank, an i n s tr u m en ta lity of Iraq

. Rafi dai n Bank i s a l s o d i s t i n g u i sh

ab l e; a s i n Ric hm ark the or der i n question autho ri zed g en er aldi sc o ve r y a g ains t an in st rum ent alityo fa f or ei gn s o v e r e i g n, n o t th e f o r e i g n s o v e r e i g n i t s e l f

. E q u a l l y i mp ortan t, th e Secon d Circu it auth orized br o a d discov ery s o t ha t the j ud gm en t cred itor w ou ld h ave an opp ortu ni tyto s ubs ta nt i at e i ts c l ai m tha t th e defen dan t i ns trum en ta l i tyo fI r aqwas the a lt ere g o o fthe Ce nt r alBa nk ofI ra q

— a cl ai m thati fp ro ve n w oul d have a l l owed th e j ud gm en t cr edi to r t o pur su e th e as se ts o fthe C en tral Ban k. N either Ric hm ark nor Ra fid ai n Bank provi de supp or t forthe disc ove ryo rderi n thi s ca se. 13 Fi nal l y, th e p lai nti ff s l odge a pol i cy obj ecti on t o re str i cti ng di sco ver y t o the pa r t i c ul ar f or ei gn- sta te proper ty sough t to be a tta ched. They m ai ntai n that l i m i tingdi sc o ve r y i n thi s way woul d e ffec ti vel y de ny j u d gm en t cre d ito rs th e op p or tu n ity to loc at e p o te n tia llyN o. 08

- 2805 33 att achabl e a sse ts ofthe f or eig n st ate
. Thi s co ntenti on m er its se ve ra l res p on se s. F i r st, i t i s an ex ag g er at i o n t o s ug g es t th atl i m i ting di sc o ve r y t o the s pec i fic p rope r tyi den ti fi ed f o r a tt ac hm en t co m pl et ely f o r ec l o se s th e o ppo r tu ni tyo fj udg m en t cred itors to d iscover any at ta ch ab l e as se ts o fthe f o re i g nst at e j udg m en t deb to r . Ta r g et ed di scov ery r eg ar di ng spe ci fi ca l l y i den ti fi ed as se ts may pr o ve fr ui tful, a nd the pl aint i ffmay in the e nd b e per m i tt ed to e xe cut e o n the sp ec ifi ed proper ty. I t i s t rue that l i m i ti ng di sco ver y t o the s peci fi c pro pertyi denti fi ed f orat tachm ent r est ri cts th e p l a i n t i ff’ s ab i l i t y t o u s e th e c o e r c i v e p o we r o ft he c ou rtto i denti fy o ther at ta ch ab l e f o r ei g n- st at e as se ts , b ut th a ti s a c o n s e q u e n c e o fth e b al an c e s t r u c kb y th e F S I A. N o th i ngi n the s ta tu to r y s ch eme preve nt s j udg m en t c re d ito rs fro m u sin g p riv at e m ea n s t o id en tify p ot en tia lly att achabl e a sse ts off or ei gn st ate s l oca ted i n the U ni ted St ate s. M or eo ver, the FS I A i ncl ud es a pro vi si on f orj ud gm ent c re dit or s in cer ta i n case s t o enl i st the a ssi sta nce o f the S ecr eta ryo fthe T re asury a nd the Se cre tar y o fS tat e in i d e n t ifying an d exec ut ing against the ass ets of a f or ei gn so ver ei gn. S ecti on 1 610( f ) ( 2) ( A ) pro vi des: A t the r equest ofany p ar ty i n w hose f avo r a j ud gm ent has bee n i ssue d w ith r espectto a cl ai m f or w hi ch the f or ei gn st ate i s n ot im m une und erse cti on 1605( a) ( 7) ( as i n effect bef or e the enac tm ent o fse cti on 16 05 A [ enact ed J an . 2 8, 2 00 8] ) o r s ec ti o n 1 60 5A, the Se cre tar y o fthe Treas ury and the S ec re tar y o fS tat e should m ake eve ry e

ff ort to f ully, prom ptly, and ef

fe cti vely a ssist an y ju dg m ent cred ito r or an y co urt th a t ha s issued34 N o. 08

- 2805

In li ght of thi s holding, w e need not consi der Ira n ’s al ter na- 14 ti ve argum ent thatthe general -a ssetdisc overy ord er vi olat es th e A lg ie rs A cc o rd s, 20 I.L .M . 22 4 (19 8 1 ). any s uc h j udg m e nti n i de nt i f yi ng, l oc at i ng, and exe cu t i ng a g a inst th e pro perty of th a t foreig n sta te orany age ncy ori nstr um ental i ty ofsuch s tat e. ( Em pha si s adde d. ) The pl aint i ff s se cur ed th ei r j udg m en t aga i nst I ra n und er§ 1605 ( a) ( 7) and thus a re el i gibl e for thi s a ssi sta nce fro m the U ni ted S tat es. There i s no questi on that the at ta c hm ent i m m unity codi fi ed i n § 1609 o fthe FS I A has a co st, and that cos t i s bo rne p ri m ar i l y b y Am er i cans who have been inj u re d in t or t o r c on tr ac t b y for eig n st at es or th eir age nci es ori nstr um ental i ti es. The FS I A em bodi es a j ud gm en t tha t ou r n a tion’s for eign-p oli cy interest s j us tify thi s par ti cul aral l oca ti on o fl ega lburdens and benefi ts. Ac c o r di ng l y, we c o n c l u d e th a tu n d e r th e F S I A a pla i nti ffse eking to at tach t h e proper ty ofa f or ei gn st ate i n t he U ni ted S tat es m ust i denti fy the speci fi c pro perty th a ti s s ubj e c tt o a t t a c hme nta nd p l a us ib l y a l l e g e that an ex c ep tio n to § 16 09 at ta c h m en t im m u n ity ap p lies . I f th e p lain tiff d oe s s o, d isc ov er y in a id of ex ec u tio n is lim ited t o the s peci fi c pro pertythe pla i nti ffhas i dent ified . Th e g e n er al-a ss et d isc ov er y or d er iss u ed in t h is c a s e i s i n c o mpa t ib l e wi th th e F S I A. 14

2. The app earanc e o rder T h e fo re go in g d isc u ss ion als o h igh ligh ts th e fla w s in th e d istrict cou rt’s earl ier ord er i n w hich the cou rtN o. 08

- 2805 35

T he d istrict cou rt justified its ap p ear an ce ru ling alm ost 15 enti rel y on an out- of

- contex t r eading of a s li ver ofFSIA legi sl at i ve hi s t or y tha tappear s in thi s f ootnot e i n the Cour t ’ s opi ni on i n V erlind en . J us t befor e the s en t en c e we have quo t ed above , the Co urt note s that“[ t] he H ouse Rep ort on the [ FSIA] s tat es that (co n tin u ed ...) he ld th at atta ch m en t im m u n it y un d er § 1609 is an affi r m at i ve d efens e th atc ano nl y b e as se r te d b y the f o r ei g n s ta te i ts el f

. Thi s r ul i ngf ai l s to g i ve effe ctt o the statu tory tex t: “[T]h e prop erty in th e U nited States of a f or ei gn st ate shall b e im m une fro m at tachm ent a rr est an d e xe cut i o n exc epta s pr o vi ded i n sec tions 1 61 0 an d 1611 of th is chap ter.” 2 8 U .S
. C
. § 1609 (em p ha sis add ed ). A s we have expla i ned, the sta tute cl oak s the fore i gn sov er ei gn’ s pro pertywith a pre sum pti on ofi m m unity fro m at tachm ent a nd executi on unl ess an e xcepti on appli es; under § 1609 the p ro p er tyi s pro tect ed by i m m unity a nd m ay not b e att ached abs ent pr oo fo fan ex ce pti o n. I t f o l l o ws from thi s l an g ua g e th atthe im m un ity d oes not de p en d on th e forei gn state’s ap p earan c e in the case . The i m m unity inheres i n the proper ty i tse l f, and the cour t m ust ad d ress i t r ega rdl ess o f w h et h er th e fo re ign st at e a p p ea rs an d as se rt s it
. A ga in, w e c an find h elp fu l a n alo go u s p rin c ip les in th e o per ation o f§ 1 60 4 j ur i sdi ct i o na li m m uni ty
. The Suprem e Cour t has co nfi rm ed that th e F SI A ’ s i m m unity fro m sui t a ri ses pre sum pti vel y, and “even if the for ei gn s t a t e d o e s n o te n t e r a n a p p e a r a n c e t o as s e r ta n i mm un ity de fen se , a Di st r i ctCo ur t st i l lmustde te r m i ne that i m m unity i s unavai l abl e u n d er the A ct. ” V erlind en , 461 U
. S. at 493-94 & n.20. T his con clusion is u n s u r- 1536 N o. 08

- 2805

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 15

‘ s ov e r e i gni m m un i t y i s a n a ffi r m a t i ve de fe ns e tha tm us tbe speci all y pleaded

. ’ ” V er lin d en B .V
. v . C en tr a l B a n ko f N ig er ia , 461 U
. S. 480, 4 93 n. 20 ( 1983) ( quoting H
. R
. Rep
. N o. 94- 1487, at 17 ( 19 76 ) )
. Buti m m edi at el y a ft erthi s r ef eren ce, the Cour ts ays quite cl earl y that the H ouse Rep ort got thi s point wron g: “Un der t he Ac t, h o we v e r , s u b j e c tma t t e r j u r i s di c t i o n tu r n s o n the exi st ence ofan ex cepti on to forei gn soverei gn im m unity, 28 U
. S. C. § 1330( a)
. Accor d in g ly, e ven ifthe f orei gn st ate do es n o t e n te r a n ap p ea ra n ce to as se r t a n i m m u n ity d efe n se , a D istrict Co u rt still m u st de term ine th at im m u nity is u na v ailable und er the Act. ” Id
. Thi s f ootnot e, r ea d as a whol e, d oe s no t supp ort the dist ri ctcourt’ s order. In a bit ofchari table und ers t at em en t, we ha ve pre vi ous l y c har ac t er i ze d thi s pas s age ofF S I A l e gi s l a t i ve h i s t or y a s “ no te nti r e l y a c c urate. ” F ro v o la v. Un i on of

Sovi etSocial i stR epubl i cs , 761 F .2d 370, 373 ( 7th Cir

. 1 9 8 5 ). A com p lic a t ion arises w he n a f or eig n-state instru m en tality 16 h a s a q u es tio n a b le cla im to ju ri sd ic tio n a l im m u n ity
. Se e, e . g. , (co n tin u ed ...) pri si ng; the i m m unity c onfe rre d by§ 1604 i s j uri sdic

ti o na l

. The Co ur t i n Ver l i nde n re ad § 1 604 tog etherwith a s e pa r a t e p r ovi s i o n o fthe F S I A, c o di fi e d a t2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 33 0(a ), w h ich p ro vid es : The dis tr i ct c ourt s shal lh ave or i gi nalj uri sdic ti on . . . o f any . . . act i on a gains t a for ei gn st ate as defi ned i n sec ti on 1 603( a) o fthi s t itle a s to any cl ai m f or re l i ef

. . . to w h i ch the f or ei gn st ate i s no t e nti tl ed to im m unity e i therunder s ecti ons 1605

- 1607o fthis tit le or an y a p p lica b le in te rn at ion al a gr ee m en t. 28 U
. S. C
. § 1330(a); V

erlind en , 46 1 U.S
. at49 3- 94. 16N o. 08

- 2805 37

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 K u n glig Jarnva gsstyrel sen v. D exter& C a rp enter, 32 F. 2d 195 ( 2d Cir

. 19 29 ) ( The pl ai nt i ff, appa re nt l y a pr i vat e c or por at i on, w as serv ed w ith a co u nte rcla i m an d then attem p ted to invoke f or e i gn - s ov e r e i gni m m un i t y by c l a i m i ngi twa s an instru m en tality of Sw ed en .)
. In t h i s situ atio n, w e ha v e he ld thatbe f or e a for ei gn i ns t ru m en tality m ay be en t i t l ed t o the pre s um pt i on ofi m m uni t y unde r § 1 60 4, itm us te s t abl i s h a pri m a f ac ie c as e thati tfi t s the FS I A’ s defi ni t i on ofa f or ei gn sta te
. S ee, e.g. , En ahoro v. A bubakar, 408 F. 3d 877, 882 ( 7th Cir

. 20 05 )
. How eve r, whenthe pl ai nt i ffs ues the f or ei gn s ove re i gn i t s el f, the i m m uni t y i s s ue i s unc om pl i c at ed; i m m uni t y is pre s um ed, an d the cou rt m u s tfi nd ane xc ept i on with o r without an app earance by the f orei gn st ate. Though not j uri sdic ti ona l, the i m m unity c onfer re d by § 16 09 i s s i m i l ar l y a def aul t pr esum pti on, o ne that i nheres i n the property ofthe f or ei gn st ate
. W hen a j ud gm ent c re dit orse eks to at tach pr oper ty to sat i sfy a j ud gme n to b t a i n e d u n d e r th e F S I A, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s i mm edi ate l y o n noti ce that the i m m unity pr ote c ti ons of § 1 609 ar e in p lay . In part i cul ar, wh er e the pl ai nti ffse eks to att ach pro pertyo fthe foreign sta te itse lf , i m m u n ity is presum ed and th e co urt m ust fi nd an e xcepti on

— w i th or w ithout an appear ance b y the f or ei gn st ate

— not as a j urisd ictional m atter bu t to gi ve effect to the sta tu tory sc h em e. See R ES TATE MENT (T HIRD ) OF THE F OR EI GN R E LAT ION S L AW O F THE U. S
. § 4 60 c m t. b ( ex pl aini ng the di stincti on in the FS IA betw een the pro pertyo f f o r e i g n s t a t e s a n d th e p r o p e r t y o ff o r e i g n - s t a t e i n s tr um en taliti es).38 N o. 08

- 2805

W e h a v e p r e v i o u sl y r eje c t e d th e n o t i o n th a ta fo r e i g n st a t e ’s 17 failure to m ak e an ap p ear an ce b efore the co u r t c ou ld its el fc o n s t itu te an im p lic it w a iv er o f so v er ei g n im m u n ity
. S ee Frol ova , 761 F. 2d at 378. This re adingo f§ 1609 i s c on firm ed by seve ra lpro vi s i o n s i n § 1 6 1 0 g o v e r n i n ge x c e p t i o n s t o a t t a c hm en t i m m unity. Fo r exam ple , § 1610 ( a) ( 1) st ate s that § 16 09 i m m unity doe s no t a pp l y where “the f or ei gn st at e has wai ve d i ts i m m uni ty fro m a tt ac hm en t i n a i d o fe xe cutio n or fro m e x ec u tio n e ith er e x p licit ly or b y im p lica tio n .” This str ongl y s ugges ts that i m m unit y fro m exec uti on i s p r e s ume d a nd wa i v e r o fi mm un i t y i s the e xc e pti on. S ecti on 1 61 0(c ) i s e ven m or e t el l i ng. That pro

17 vi si on g ove rns the i ssuance ofan a tta ch m en t order u n d erei ther§ 1610 ( a) o r ( b) wh en the f or ei gn st ate is ind efa u lt: N o att achm ent o r executi on r efer re d to i n subsec

ti o ns ( a ) a nd (b ) o fthi s s e c t i o n s ha l lb e p e rm i tte d unt i lthe c o ur t ha s o r der ed su cha tt ac hm en t an d ex ec u tio n aft er h av in g d et er m in ed th a t a rea so n ab le peri od ofti m e has el apsed f ol l owing the e ntryo f j ud gm ent and the gi vi ng of any noti ce requir ed unde r s ec ti o n 1 60 8( e) o fthi s ch apt er[ gove r ni ng se rv ice , tim e t o a n sw er , an d d efa u lt]. 28 U. S
. C. § 1 6 1 0 ( c )
. T he wa i t i ngp e r i o d r e qu i r e d b y § 1 61 0(c) e nsures thata defa ult i ng f or ei gn st ate i s pro vi ded a d equate noti ce b ef or e a n att achm ent o rder i ssued under e i th er § 16 10( a) o r ( b)

— th e “ c om m er c ial” excepti ons to § 1 609 i m m unity

— w ill tak e e ffec t. T h isN o. 08

- 2805 39 provi si on m ake s i t cl eart h at e ven when the f or ei gn st at e f ai l s to a ppea r i n the e xe cut i o n pr o ce eding, the cour t m ust dete rm i ne thatthe pro pertyso ught t o be att ached i s e xcepted fro m i m m unity unde r § 1 610( a) o r ( b) b efo r e i t ca n o r dera tt ac hm en t o r e xe cut i o n. Our c o nc l us i o n tha t the c o ur t mus t a ddr e s s § 1 609 i m m uni tye ve n i n th e abs en ce o fa n a ppea r an ce b y the f or ei gn sta te i s al so consi ste nt w i th th e c om m on- l aw pr a c t i c e tha tthe F S I A c o di f i ed. As we h a v e e xp l a i ne d, the a tta chm ent i m m unity o ff oreign-s tat e pr oper ty, l i ke th e j u ris d ict ion al i m m u n ity of foreig n st at es , w a s h i st or ically d eterm ined w ithou t regard to th e forei gn state’s appe ar an ce inthe c as e. The c o ur t ei th erde fer r ed to the State De par tment ’ s su g g es ti o n o fi m m uni tyo r made th e i m m unity dete rm i nati on i tse l f, byr efer ence to the St ate D ep a r tm en t’s established policy regard ing forei gn -sovereig n im m u n ity
. See R e p u b l ic of M exic o v. Ho

ffm a n, 324 U. S
. 3 0, 3 5- 36 ( 19 45 ) ( co m m o n- l aw do ct r i ne o ff o r ei g nso ve r ei g n i m m un ity r equi r ed j udi ci alde fer en ce t o e xec ut i ve de te r m i na ti o ns o fi m m uni tyb ec au se “[ t] he j ud i ci alse i zure ” o fthe proper ty of a forei gn st ate m ay be r ega rded as “an affro nt to i ts digni ty and m ay . . . affect our re l a t i o ns wi th i t ” )
. T hi s p r a c t i c e c o nt i nu e d a ft er the i ssuance ofthe Tate Letterand the St ate Departm ent’ s s hi ft t o the r est ri c tive theo ryo ff or ei gn- sov er ei gn i m m unity. To d a t e , t wo c i r c u i t s h a v e a d d r e s s e d wh e th e r t he f o r ei g n s ta te musta ppea r a nd a ss er t § 16 09 a tt ach m en t im m unity, and b oth have concl ud ed that the answ er is “n o . ” I n th e m o st r ec en t ca se , th e Pe te r so n pl aint i ff s ( who40 N o. 08

- 2805 ha ve i nt er ve ne d he r e) s o ug ht to e xe cut e th ei r j udg m en t ag ain st c er ta in Iran ian re c eiv ab les ; th e N in th C irc u it c on c lu d ed th at th e d i s t r i c t c ou rtm u st ind ep en d en tly r a i s e a nd de c i de whe the r the pr o pe r t y i s i mm une f ro m at ta c h m en t u n d er § 16 09
. Pet e rs on v. Is l am i c Rep ubl i c of Ir an , 6 27 F. 3d 11 17, 1 12 6- 28 ( 9th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. S i m i l ar l y, the Fi fth Ci rcui t has h eld that “the [ f or ei gn st ate ’ s] pre sence i s i rr el evant ” to the questi on wh etherthe proper ty th e plaintiffseeks t o a t t a ch i s exc ep ted from § 1609’s p re su m p tiv e im m u n ity
. Wa lk er Int’l Ho ldi n g s L t d. v. R epub l i c of Congo , 39 5 F. 3d 229, 233 ( 5th Ci r. 20 04)
. A di str i ct c ou rtin M as sa c h u se tt s a lso ag re es . SeeRubin v. Isl am ic Rep ub l i c of

Ir an , 456 F. Supp. 2d 228, 231- 32 ( D. M ass . 20 06 ) ( ex ec uti o n pr o ce edingb r o ug htb y the Rub i n pl ainti ff s to a tt ac h pr o per tyi n the po ss es si o n o fa muse um at H ar va rd U n ive rs ity bu t a lleg ed to be lon g t o Ira n ). W e no w j oi n thes e co urts i n concl ud i ng tha t under § 1 609 o fthe F S I A, the pr o per tyo fa f o r ei g n s ta te i n the Uni te d S ta te s i s pr es um ed i m m une fr o m a tt ac hm en t and executi on. The i m m unity inheres i n the proper ty a nd do e s n o tde pe nd o n a n a pp e a r a nc e a nd s pe c i a lp l e a di ng by the f or ei gn st ate i tse l f

. The party in posse ssi on o f the pr oper ty m ay ra i se the i m m unity o r the c ourtm ay add re ss i t s ua sponte
. Ei therway , the co urt m ust ind epe nd e n t l y s a t i s fy i t s e l fth a ta n e x c e p t i o n t o § 1 6 0 9 i mm unity a pp l i es b efor e o rder i ng at tachm ent o r othe r executi on o n f or ei gn- sta te proper ty i n the U ni ted S tat es. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons , we R EV ERSE the dist ri ct cour t’ s g ener al

- ass et disc ove ryo rderand i ts ear l i er or der r equi ring I ra n to appear and affi rm ativ ely pl eadN o. 08

- 2805 41 § 1 6 0 9 i mm un i t y, a nd R EMAND f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

3- 29- 11