This material is general public information for educational purposes only. It should not be used as legal, financial, or tax advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading it. Federal, state, and local rules may vary and may change over time. A qualified professional can review specific circumstances.
Key Facts
- Federal level: 28 U.S.C. § 1782 lets a U.S. district court order testimony or document production for use in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations before formal accusation.
- National overview: Resolution 11-03-A Annex 2 requires notice and an opportunity to be heard when a court intends to apply the protocol in a Canada U.S. cross border class action.
- National overview: Annex 2 directs counsel to advise the court about other related class actions arising out of the same claims or events that counsel or clients know about.
- National overview: Annex 2 frames coordination through court-to-court communications as a response to common substantive or procedural issues after the protocol is adopted.
- State level: Annex 2 requires the court to be satisfied that any proposed communication stays consistent with the court’s applicable rules of procedure or other governing law in its jurisdiction.
- National overview: Annex 2 permits communications without parties present only for procedural, coordination, or other non-substantive matters, with advance notice to counsel and a summary afterward.
- Federal level: 28 U.S.C. § 1783 authorizes subpoenas issued by U.S. courts for U.S. nationals or residents located in a foreign country, with service and travel expense mechanics tied to federal procedure.
- Federal level: 28 U.S.C. § 1784 provides a contempt mechanism for noncompliance with subpoenas served abroad, including a maximum fine of not more than $100,000.
- Federal level: 28 U.S.C. § 1781 places Department of State in the transmittal and return chain for letter rogatories or requests between tribunals and U.S. entities.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- When a court intends to apply Resolution 11 03 A Annex 2, counsel get notice and a chance to be heard
- Annex 2 links coordination to related class actions
- Annex 2 requires a consistency check with the court’s governing law
- Communications without parties present have specific conditions
- Annex 2 describes communication methods and joint hearings
- Federal statutes provide separate U.S. tools for international evidence assistance
- Department of State processing for letters rogatory and requests
- District court authority to order evidence for use abroad
- Subpoenas abroad and contempt enforcement
- Quick distinction protocol coordination versus statutory evidence assistance
- How the pieces fit together without turning court communications into evidence orders
- Related legal information
- Sources
Cross-border class actions often involve multiple courts and legal systems, plus evidence and witnesses that may be located across borders. In that setting, Resolution 11-03-A Annex 2 uses structured court-to-court communications to reduce avoidable inconsistency, while separate federal statutes provide U.S. court mechanisms for international evidence assistance.
When a court intends to apply Resolution 11 03 A Annex 2, counsel get notice and a chance to be heard
The Annex 2 excerpt says that where a court intends to apply the protocol (with or without modifications), counsel in that case shall be given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the protocol sections to be employed (see Resolution 11-03-A Annex 2 Protocol).
Annex 2 links coordination to related class actions
Annex 2 also directs that all counsel should advise the court of any other class actions involving or arising out of the same claims or events that counsel or their clients are aware of. After the protocol is adopted, it describes a coordination goal: if there is commonality among substantive or procedural issues, the court should communicate with the other court(s) in the manner prescribed by the protocol to coordinate proceedings in the other jurisdictions (see Resolution 11-03-A Annex 2 Protocol).
Annex 2 requires a consistency check with the court’s governing law
Before a court communicates with another court, the Annex 2 excerpt says the court should be satisfied that the proposed communication is consistent with the applicable rules of procedure or other governing law in its jurisdiction. This is a guardrail that keeps cross-court coordination inside the procedural boundaries of the court doing the communication (see Resolution 11-03-A Annex 2 Protocol).
Communications without parties present have specific conditions
Annex 2 distinguishes communications that concern only procedural, coordination, or other non-substantive matters from communications that would raise substantive issues. The excerpt states that courts may communicate without parties present only if the communication pertains solely to those non-substantive topics, counsel for all affected parties receive advance notice, and counsel receive a summary after the communication (see Resolution 11-03-A Annex 2 Protocol).
Annex 2 describes communication methods and joint hearings
The Annex 2 excerpt provides examples of court-to-court communications, including sending or transmitting copies of formal orders, judgments, opinions, reasons for decision, or endorsements to other court(s) excluding sealed documents, and two-way communications by correspondence, telephone, video conference call, or other electronic means. It also provides for the possibility of a joint hearing with another court and includes expectations that each court and counsel should be able to hear simultaneously, with attention to privilege and immunity-related issues (see Resolution 11-03-A Annex 2 Protocol).
Federal statutes provide separate U.S. tools for international evidence assistance
Court-to-court coordination under Annex 2 addresses how courts communicate with each other, while U.S. federal international evidence statutes address what U.S. courts can order or facilitate when testimony or documents must be used in a foreign or international proceeding.
Department of State processing for letters rogatory and requests
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1781, the Department of State has power to receive a letter rogatory (or similar request), transmit it, and receive and return it after execution.
District court authority to order evidence for use abroad
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, a U.S. district court may order a person in the district where that person resides or is found to give testimony or a statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The statute also addresses practice and procedure by stating the order may prescribe practice and procedure, and to the extent it does not prescribe otherwise, testimony or production is taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while also providing that a person may not be compelled to give testimony or produce documents in violation of any legally applicable privilege.
Subpoenas abroad and contempt enforcement
When a person is a U.S. national or resident located in a foreign country, 28 U.S.C. § 1783 authorizes issuance of a subpoena requiring appearance or production when the testimony or production is necessary in the interest of justice, with additional conditions described for noncriminal matters. The statute also ties service to provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for service of process on a person in a foreign country and requires the serving person to tender estimated necessary travel and attendance expenses as determined by the court. If a person is found in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena served in a foreign country, 28 U.S.C. § 1784(d) provides a fine cap of not more than $100,000.
Quick distinction protocol coordination versus statutory evidence assistance
The protocol and the statutes can work together in cross-border proceedings, but they do different jobs.
| Tool | What it governs | Source basis |
|---|---|---|
| Annex 2 court-to-court protocol | How courts coordinate with each other through communications, including notice, hearing for counsel, and conditions for communications without parties | Resolution 11-03-A Annex 2 |
| 28 U.S.C. §§ 1781 to 1784 | How the U.S. federal system processes international requests, orders testimony or document production for use abroad, issues subpoenas for U.S. persons located abroad, and enforces compliance through contempt | 28 U.S.C. §§ 1781 to 1784 |
Annex 2 is about coordination communications subject to procedural guardrails, while 28 U.S.C. §§ 1781 to 1784 describe U.S. legal mechanisms that support evidence-related steps for use in foreign or international proceedings.
How the pieces fit together without turning court communications into evidence orders
Annex 2’s structure focuses on how courts coordinate with other courts in a cross-border class action setting, including notice and counsel participation requirements and limits on non-substantive communications without parties. The federal statutes describe evidence-focused tools—Department of State processing, district court orders for testimony or document production for use abroad, and subpoena and contempt mechanisms for persons outside the U.S.—so coordination and evidence authority come from separate legal lanes.
