Interest of the United States ......

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Interest of the United States ........................................................ 1
Statement ......................................................................................... 1
Discussion ........................................................................................ 6
I. The court of appeals broadly held that the FSIA
 does not constrain general discovery into a foreign
 state’s assets ..................................................................... 7
II. The court of appeals’ decision is incorrect ................... 8
A. Courts must exercise their authority to order
discovery concerning a foreign state’s assets
consistent with the FSIA’s presumptive
immunity from execution and the comity
and reciprocity concerns embodied in the
statute ......................................................................... 8
B. The court of appeals erred in upholding the
district court’s discovery order ............................. 12
III. This Court’s review is warranted ................................ 18
A. The court of appeals’ holding that the FSIA
does not constrain post-judgment asset
discovery conflicts with the decisions of
other courts of appeals ........................................... 18
B. The question presented is important ................... 19
C. This case is a suitable vehicle to resolve the
question presented .................................................. 21
Conclusion ...................................................................................... 23
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Af-Cap, Inc. v. Chevron Overseas (Congo) Ltd.,
475 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................ 12, 19
Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping
Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989) .................................................... 14