of federal discovery with their forum non conveniens dismissal. The filing of suits in a forum known to be inconvenient, under hopes of being guaranteed certain procedural advantages in conjunction with a dismissal order, serves only to waste valuable judicial resources, and further congest an already crowded docket. We cannot endorse such a strategy by granting one of the aims it seeks to achieve.
We are also influenced by the Second Circuit's concern, expressed in In re Union Carbide Corp., 809 F.2d at 205, with requiring a defendant, in conjunction with a favorable forum non conveniens dismissal order, "to consent to broad discovery of it by the plaintiffs under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" when the defendant "is confined to the more limited discovery" permitted under the laws of the foreign forum: "basic justice dictates that both sides be treated equally, with each having equal access to the evidence in the possession or under the control of the other." 809 F.2d at 205. For this reason the Circuit Court in In re Union Carbide Corp. set aside the condition attached by the District Court to its dismissal order that required the defendant to subject to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 809 F.2d at 205-06. The Court noted that the condition was deleted "without prejudice to the right of the parties to have reciprocal discovery of each other on equal terms under the Federal Rules, subject to such approval as may be required of the [foreign] court in which the case will be pending." 809 F.2d at 206. We believe a similar approach is appropriate in the present circumstances: if an Irish court permits discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules, this Order should not be construed to bar such a procedure. Absent such a court-approved agreement, however, discovery rules of the Irish forum in which the suits will be heard should govern.
With regard to the condition in Dowling requiring defendants to waive any statute of limitations defense that may be available to them, we believe a less expansive waiver to be more appropriate under the circumstances. Defendants will be required to waive any statute of limitations defense that arose since the commencement of each action in New York State Supreme Court.
As defendants do not contest the condition requiring them to consent to jurisdiction and service of process in suits filed in Ireland, we see no reason to alter this provision.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is granted in each case, subject to defendants' compliance with the following conditions:
1. that defendants consent to jurisdiction and service of process in any suit plaintiffs file in Ireland on claims that are the subject of the instant actions;
2. that defendants waive any statute of limitations defense that may have arisen since the commencement of their respective actions in New York State Supreme Court;
3. that defendants not act to prevent plaintiffs from returning to this Court if the Irish Court declines to accept jurisdiction, provided that an action is filed in Ireland within 90 days of the entry of this Order.
Due to this Court's disposition of these cases on forum non conveniens grounds, the question whether plaintiffs have standing to sue need not be reached.
William C. Conner
United States District Judge
Dated: December 1, 1992
New York, New York