Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank

Background

The plaintiffs are United States nationals injured in terrorist attacks between 2000 and 2004, along with their estates, heirs, and families. They allege that Cairo Amman Bank, a bank incorporated and headquartered in Amman, Jordan, aided the attacks by facilitating money transfers used to finance them. Their claims arise under the Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

The plaintiffs sought information about 66 accounts maintained by Cairo Amman Bank around the time of the attacks. According to the bank’s chief executive officer, 32 accounts had been closed before 2009, leaving the bank with only account-holder names and opening and closing dates. The bank said it had account-opening documents for the other 34 accounts but no transaction records from the period of the attacks.

On February 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge Kathryn H. Parker granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the bank to produce the requested information. The order recognized that production would violate bank-secrecy laws in Jordan and Palestine but concluded, after balancing seven international-comity factors, that production was warranted. It set an August 15, 2025 production deadline and allowed the bank time to ask Jordanian and Palestinian authorities to waive their bank-secrecy laws.

Cairo Amman Bank’s objections

Cairo Amman Bank asked the district court to modify or set aside Judge Parker’s discovery order. It argued that the requested documents were not relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and that the order improperly required production in violation of foreign bank-secrecy laws.

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed the objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Under that rule, a district court may change a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive matter only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court described this as a highly deferential standard that places a heavy burden on the objecting party.

The court held that the requested documents were relevant for discovery purposes. The plaintiffs’ aiding-and-abetting theory requires them to show, among other things, that the bank was generally aware that it played a role in an overall illegal activity and knowingly provided substantial assistance. The court agreed that account-opening documents and account-holder identities could help show what the bank knew about customers allegedly involved in terrorist activity. It also held that information about relatives of people allegedly associated with the attacks could fall within the scope of discovery based on the plaintiffs’ factual presentations.

The court also upheld Judge Parker’s analysis of the foreign bank-secrecy laws. It explained that an American court may order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even when production would violate foreign law. In deciding whether to do so, courts weigh factors including the importance and specificity of the request, whether alternative ways exist to obtain the information, the interests of the United States and the foreign country, the burden of compliance, and the resisting party’s good faith.

The court found no clear error or legal mistake in Judge Parker’s conclusion that these factors favored production. It gave particular weight to the United States’ interests in fully adjudicating cases in its courts, combating terrorism, and compensating terrorism victims. It also recognized Jordan’s interest in enforcing its bank-secrecy laws but stated that Jordan’s interest in deterring terrorist financing could support disclosure in this case.

The court emphasized that the discovery order did not decide whether Cairo Amman Bank was liable for aiding and abetting terrorism. It also stated that any possible sanctions for failing to comply with the discovery order would be addressed separately.

Disposition

Judge Woods found no clear error or misapplication of law in Judge Parker’s February 14, 2025 order. The court overruled Cairo Amman Bank’s objections, leaving the order compelling production in place.