A recent decision by the Second Circuit serves as a warning signal to foreign states and their attorneys in the United States. In Mare Shipping Inc. v. Squire Sanders (US) LLP, No. 13-4426-CV, — Fed. Appx. —, 2014 WL 3733133 (2d Cir., July 30, 2014), the Second Circuit held that the FSIA does not preclude discovery requests targeting a foreign state’s counsel in the United States. Relying on Rep. of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2250, 2256, (2014), the court held that the FSIA’s “explicit definition” of a “foreign state,” by “its plain text, excludes a foreign sovereign’s U.S. counsel.” Mare Shipping, 2014 WL 3733133, at *3.
It is unclear what practical impact Mare Shipping will have, since documents and other information obtained by FSIA defense counsel from a foreign state would presumably remain protected by the attorney-client privilege. In addition, FSIA counsel’s work should remain protected by the attorney work product doctrine. However, in the event that such protections do not apply, defense counsel should be aware that they likely cannot rely upon the FSIA to fight discovery related to their representation of foreign states.