<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Germany&#8217;s Position on Pre-Trial Discovery Softens!	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/01/27/germanys-position-on-pre-trial-discovery-softens/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/01/27/germanys-position-on-pre-trial-discovery-softens/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:03:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Vivian Curran		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2017/01/27/germanys-position-on-pre-trial-discovery-softens/#comment-2823</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Vivian Curran]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=24204#comment-2823</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As I noted in my article on blocking statutes last year in the La. Law Review, my suspicion is that this new legislation is unlikely to bring any significant change. The language here is consistent with judicial practice in civil law countries, such that the requesting party will need to know of the specific document(s) requested and is likely to have to establish why it is necessary for that party to rely on the document(s) at issue in the request for its case. As you correctly note, its intent is to encourage use of the Hague Convention, and I have my doubts about U.S. courts&#039; inclination to do this, but we will have  to stay tuned!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I noted in my article on blocking statutes last year in the La. Law Review, my suspicion is that this new legislation is unlikely to bring any significant change. The language here is consistent with judicial practice in civil law countries, such that the requesting party will need to know of the specific document(s) requested and is likely to have to establish why it is necessary for that party to rely on the document(s) at issue in the request for its case. As you correctly note, its intent is to encourage use of the Hague Convention, and I have my doubts about U.S. courts&#8217; inclination to do this, but we will have  to stay tuned!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
