W. Cameron Beard and Lauren B. Wilgus
Critical evidence, needed for the resolution of a dispute abroad, may be located in the United States. A key witness may reside in the United States, or important financial or other documentary evidence may be found only in this country. As we have discussed in previous articles,1 section 1782 of the United States Code (“section 1782”) offers a powerful tool for the collection of evidence in the United States for use in foreign legal proceedings. The statute allows either a foreign tribunal or a party to foreign proceedings to apply directly to a U.S. federal court for an order directing that a witness be examined or that evidence be disclosed for purposes of a foreign legal proceeding. The procedure is highly efficient; by taking advantage of section 1782, foreign litigants can often avoid and bypass the unwieldy and time-consuming requirements of letters rogatory or requests for evidence collection under the Hague Convention on the Collection of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.
Under U.S. law, personal jurisdiction is one of the fundamental aspects of a court’s ability to adjudicate a particular dispute, and it often plays a role in maritime cases, given the far-flung nature of the industry. In recent years, the trend in U.S. courts has been generally favorable to personal jurisdiction challenges. This is highlighted by two separate cases, Gulf Coast Int’l, L.L.C. v. The Research Corp. of the Univ. of Hawaii, 490 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied), and Mitsui Sumimoto Insurance Co., Ltd. v. M/V DEFIANT, et al., civil action H-16-55 (S.D.Tex. Aug. 23, 2016) (Miller, G.), recently handled by Blank Rome’s Houston office in which dismissals were obtained for the Firm’s clients on the basis that the court in which the plaintiff had filed suit did not have personal jurisdiction over the companies being sued. 
The scenario is a familiar one to lawyers practicing in maritime and admiralty law—a frantic middle-of-thenight call, a shipboard emergency, and your client looking to you for answers in a high-stakes scenario that could amount to the beginning of a very bad day. It is in the critical moments that follow during which government and private counsel may come into contact with the other, and those moments may to some extent define the course of the investigation. Depending on the precise incident, private counsel may find themselves inundated with multiple federal or state agencies, dealing with a litany of acronyms and governmental procedures. On the other hand, government counsel may be called to interact directly with private counsel while not fully understanding the private attorney’s motivations in representing their client. Regardless of the incident, there is potential for a language and cultural barrier when parties interact while serving respective clients during a maritime investigation, and counsel are at a disadvantage if they have not taken initial steps to understand the other side’s driving factors and authoritative processes before the initial interaction.
Cybersecurity has become a critical focus for all industries reliant on information technology (“IT”). Massive data breaches, cyber espionage, and hacking events sponsored by nation states around the globe occur with growing frequency. 
In the aftermath of a major shipping disaster, a vessel owner may be expected to exercise its right to file a petition to limit its liability in accordance with the U.S. Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act, 46 USC §30501, et seq. This may evoke negative press and social media reaction with a now-familiar refrain: Why should a shipowner escape full liability for a disaster by hiding behind a 19th-century (i.e., outdated, antique, and ancient) statute? One might well ask whether the Limitation Act has outlived its usefulness, but this author’s belief is that the statute need not be repealed. Modern safety management systems, communication systems, and vessel tracking systems have served to make it far more difficult for owners to limit their liability, and the procedural benefits of the statute are helpful to all concerned. It may, however, be time for the United States to become signatory to the existing up-to-date international treaty on a limitation of liability. 
Action Item: The U.S. Coast Guard released an updated version of the CG-2692 forms for reports of marine casualties, commercial diving casualties, and outer continental shelf-related casualties. Vessel owners and operators are encouraged to review the new forms and ensure the new forms are used for future reports.