UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WESTINGHOUSE OVERSEAS SERVICE

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-2168

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE INDUSTRIES,

LIMITED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-94-2513-WMN)

Argued: April 3, 1996

Decided: April 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Donald E. Sharpe, PIPER & MARBURY, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael H. Selter, GRAHAM &

JAMES, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William L.

Reynolds, Quincy M. Crawford, PIPER & MARBURY, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; H. Alan Jones, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC

CORPORATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Westinghouse Overseas Service Corporation ("Westinghouse")

filed this action against Australian Defence Industries, Inc. in the

United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Westinghouse alleged claims for breach of contract and for misappropriation

of trade secrets. The district court dismissed the action on the basis

of forum non conveniens in favor of the Australian Capital Territory

Court.

A court may dismiss an action under forum non conveniens when

the relevant public and private interests strongly favor trial in an alternative forum. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981);

Kontoulas v. A. H. Robins Co., 745 F.2d 312, 315 (4th Cir. 1984).

"The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound

discretion of the trial court. It may be reversed only where there has

been a clear abuse of discretion; where the court has considered all

relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of

these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference." Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257.

The district court found that the private interest factors did not

favor either forum: each party possessed copies of the relevant documents near its desired forum, and each party would be equally inconvenienced by having to travel to the other country to depose

witnesses. Westinghouse Overseas Serv. Corp. v. Australian Defence

Indus., Civil Action No. WMN-94-2513, mem. at 6 (D. Md. May 26,

1995). On the other hand, the district court found that the public interest factors strongly favored litigating this case in the Australian Capital Territory. In the district court's view, the fact that the law of the

Australian Capital Territory applies to the breach of contract claims,

together with the fact that Westinghouse submitted to the jurisdiction

in the Australian Capital Territory, constituted strong reasons to dismiss this action in favor of the Australian forum. Id. at 9.

 2
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

balancing the public and private interests in this case. We therefore

affirm the district court's dismissal of Westinghouse's action upon the

claim of forum non conveniens.

AFFIRMED

 3