Plaintiff-Caused Foreign Delay and Ongoing Parallel Proceedings Support Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal Despite Defendant’s New Jersey Home Forum

Introduction

In Martin and Harris Private Ltd v. Merck & Co Inc (3d Cir. Aug. 6, 2026) (not precedential), the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of a New Jersey action brought by Martin & Harris Private Limited (“M&H”), an Indian company, against Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”).

The dispute traces to a decades-long India-centric pharmaceutical distribution relationship that deteriorated after corporate acquisitions ultimately placed Organon under Merck’s control. M&H sued in the Bombay High Court in 2010 (the “India Action”), but the record reflected missed deadlines and plaintiff-sought adjournments. After obtaining U.S. discovery via a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 proceeding in New Jersey (the “1782 Action”), M&H filed a new tort/unjust-enrichment suit in New Jersey (the “Current Action”), alleging the India Action was “hopelessly stalled.” Merck moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens, and the District Court granted the motion.

The key issues on appeal were whether India was an “adequate alternative forum,” how much deference was owed to the foreign plaintiff’s New Jersey forum choice (given Merck’s New Jersey headquarters), and whether the public and private interest factors “tipped decidedly” toward India.

Procedural notes: The disposition is designated “NOT PRECEDENTIAL” under Third Circuit I.O.P. 5.7. The opinion was issued by a quorum under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 12.1(b).

Summary of the Opinion

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that:

  • India is an adequate alternative forum despite allegations of delay and less robust discovery, particularly where the record did not show “profound and extreme” delay and the plaintiff contributed materially to the case’s stagnation.
  • Reduced deference was properly afforded to M&H’s U.S. forum choice because M&H is foreign and failed to make a strong showing of U.S. (and specifically New Jersey) convenience; Merck’s being “at home” in New Jersey did not, by itself, increase deference.
  • Private and public interest factors reasonably favored India, including witness/document concentration in India, the burden and inefficiency of parallel proceedings arising from the same nucleus of facts, India’s stronger local interest, and administrative concerns (including risk of inconsistent outcomes).

Analysis

1) Precedents Cited

Foundational doctrine and standard of review

  • Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947): Cited for the core proposition that forum non conveniens permits a court to “decline jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances,” and for the classic private/public interest-factor framework. The panel also echoed Gilbert’s emphasis on avoiding “oppressiveness and vexation” disproportionate to plaintiff convenience.
  • Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981): Anchored multiple aspects of the analysis: (i) appellate deference (“clear” abuse of discretion standard), (ii) reduced deference to a foreign plaintiff’s forum choice, (iii) adequacy of alternative forum even if remedies or procedures are less favorable, and (iv) the public-interest factor list (notably at 241 n.6 and adequacy discussion at 254 n.22).
  • Windt v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008): Supplied the Third Circuit’s articulation of review (“substantial deference” when factors are considered and balanced reasonably) and the point that suing a defendant in its home forum does not automatically establish heightened deference absent a broader showing of convenience.

The Third Circuit’s required three-step sequence and burdens

  • Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co. ("Lacey I"), 862 F.2d 38 (3d Cir. 1988): Provided the controlling “three-step” framework (adequate alternative forum → deference → balancing) and the panel’s insistence that the order is “non-negotiable.”
  • Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co. ("Lacey II"), 932 F.2d 170 (3d Cir. 1991): Reinforced the “quite constrained” scope of appellate review and the reversal triggers (failure to determine proper deference or clear error in weighing).
  • Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. ("Lony I"), 886 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1989): Cited for burden allocation at each step and for the idea that a defendant’s local presence has “considerable weight” in assessing convenience, though not dispositive.
  • Trotter v. 7R Holdings LLC, 873 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 2017): Restated the “exceptional circumstances” threshold and summarized the three-step approach in modern Third Circuit terms.

Adequate alternative forum: delay, remedies, and procedure

  • Tech. Dev. Co. v. Onischenko, 536 F. Supp. 2d 511 (D.N.J. 2007): Quoted for the adequacy definition: defendant amenable to process and claims cognizable for appropriate redress.
  • Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220 (3d Cir. 1995): Central to the delay argument. The panel relied on Bhatnagar’s rule that only “profound and extreme” delays can make a forum inadequate, with the illustrative “up to a quarter of a century” delay deemed tantamount to no remedy.
  • Krish v. Balasubramaniam, 2007 WL 1219281 (E.D. Cal. 2007); In re Bancredit Cayman Ltd., 2008 WL 5396618 (S.D.N.Y 2008); Kyla Shipping Co. v. Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Indus. Co., 2012 WL 1565634 (S.D. Ala. 2012): Used as comparative examples where multi-year delays did not render forums inadequate, supporting the conclusion that the asserted delays here did not approach Bhatnagar’s extremity.
  • Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, 623 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2010): Key for rejecting “less discovery” as a basis for inadequacy; a forum may be adequate even without U.S.-style compulsory discovery mechanisms.
  • Derensis v. Coopers & Lybrand Chartered Accts., 930 F. Supp. 1003 (D.N.J. 1996): Invoked to justify discounting speculative expert assertions about foreign-forum deficiencies when not supported by concrete evidence.

Deference to foreign plaintiffs and the “home forum” argument

  • Kisano Trade & Inv. Ltd. v. Lemster, 737 F.3d 869 (3d Cir. 2013): Provided modern Third Circuit language on reduced deference to foreign plaintiffs and the requirement that defendants show the balance “tips decidedly” toward the foreign forum; also clarified that district courts need not explicitly utter “oppressiveness and vexation” if the factor analysis is thorough.

India as an adequate forum (illustrative modern authorities)

  • Chigurupati v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., 480 F. App'x 672 (3d Cir. 2012); Emqore Envesecure Private Cap. Tr. v. Singh, 2022 WL 4104261 (D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2022); Payoda, Inc. v. Photon Infotech, Inc., 2016 WL 1059515 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016); BMR & Assocs., LLP v. SFW Cap. Partners, LLC, 92 F. Supp. 3d 128 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Gosain v. State Bank of India, 2011 WL 13383362 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2011): Cited to reinforce the broader judicial consensus that Indian courts generally qualify as adequate alternative forums in commercial disputes.

The parties’ history and § 1782 background

  • In re Martin & Harris Priv. Ltd., 2021 WL 2434069 (D.N.J. June 14, 2021): Used as contextual support that the § 1782 court doubted M&H sought certain materials in India, yet allowed subpoenas—undercutting the narrative that India’s processes were the sole obstacle.

2) Legal Reasoning

Step One: Adequate Alternative Forum (India)

Applying the Tech. Dev. Co. v. Onischenko formulation, the court accepted (and M&H conceded) that Merck is amenable to process in India and the dispute is cognizable there. The fight was over “rare circumstances” under Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno where remedies are “clearly unsatisfactory.”

Delay. The panel treated delay as potentially relevant, per Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., but held the record did not show “profound and extreme” delay. The opinion’s most salient move was attribution: it highlighted record evidence that M&H requested adjournments and failed to comply with ordered evidentiary steps, and it credited the Bombay High Court’s written observation that M&H had not pursued the case “with alacrity and in good faith” and was “only” to blame for the posture since 2015. In effect, the court treated plaintiff-caused stagnation as incompatible with claiming the forum is “no remedy at all.”

Discovery limitations. The panel rejected the notion that less robust Indian discovery makes India inadequate, relying on Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA. It further reasoned factually that Merck’s alleged nonproduction in India aligned with local procedures and a specific Indian discovery order, and that M&H did not show it meaningfully pursued the contested discovery in India before using § 1782.

Step Two: Deference to Plaintiff’s Choice

The court applied the Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno baseline: foreign plaintiffs receive less deference. While Merck’s principal place of business in New Jersey “has considerable weight” under Lony I, the panel followed Windt v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc. in refusing to treat the defendant’s “home forum” as a deference trump card without a broader showing of practical convenience.

M&H’s showing fell short because (i) it did not clearly establish a substantial New Jersey witness base, (ii) produced evidence suggested only a small fraction of relevant custodial documents were U.S.-based, and (iii) it offered only speculation that “likely” New Jersey conduct would emerge in discovery, without identifying concrete New Jersey events.

Step Three: Balancing Private and Public Interest Factors

Private factors. Drawing from Kisano Trade & Inv. Ltd. v. Lemster and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the panel accepted the District Court’s focus on where proof and witnesses sit. The quantitative record mattered: most documents (as reflected through § 1782 custodians) and the bulk of identified witnesses were in India, and—critically—neither side could claim the case was centered in New Jersey.

A notable aspect is the weight given to parallel proceedings. Citing Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, the court treated the existence of an underway India Action involving a “common nucleus of operative facts” as creating substantial inefficiency and expense if the Current Action proceeded in New Jersey.

Public factors. The panel affirmed findings that India’s local interest predominated because the controversy was “India-centric,” and that New Jersey’s interest (even with Merck headquartered there) was comparatively attenuated. It further accepted administrative concerns: parallel proceedings risk inconsistent orders/judgments and create avoidable burdens. The court also approved the conclusion that it would be unfair to burden New Jersey residents with jury duty in a dispute lacking significant local ties.

3) Impact

  • Litigation strategy and forum shopping constraints. The opinion underscores that a plaintiff cannot credibly argue foreign inadequacy based on delay where the record shows plaintiff-driven adjournments or noncompliance. Practically, this incentivizes diligent prosecution abroad before invoking U.S. courts.
  • § 1782 is not a backdoor to reforum the merits. Successfully obtaining § 1782 discovery (or discovering that U.S. discovery is broader) does not, without more, establish that the foreign forum is inadequate or that U.S. merits litigation is the proper next step.
  • “Defendant at home” remains important but not decisive. Even when the defendant is headquartered in the chosen U.S. forum, foreign plaintiffs must still show concrete convenience—witnesses, documents, and operative conduct—connected to that district.
  • Parallel foreign proceedings as a powerful consideration. The decision reinforces that avoiding duplicative litigation and inconsistent outcomes is a legitimate, often weighty reason to dismiss in favor of the forum already handling the core dispute.
  • Precedential scope. Because the decision is “NOT PRECEDENTIAL,” its formal binding effect is limited. Still, it functions as a detailed application of the Third Circuit’s established forum non conveniens framework to a modern transnational, § 1782-adjacent dispute pattern.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Forum non conveniens: A doctrine allowing a court with jurisdiction to dismiss when another forum is substantially more appropriate, considering fairness and efficiency.
  • Adequate alternative forum: Another country’s court is “adequate” if the defendant can be sued there and the claims are recognized there, unless remedies are so poor (e.g., extreme delay tantamount to no remedy) that the forum is effectively unavailable.
  • Deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum: Courts usually respect where a plaintiff sues, but they give less weight when the plaintiff is foreign because the choice may suggest tactical selection rather than convenience.
  • Private vs. public interest factors:
    • Private: practical trial burdens—where evidence and witnesses are, cost, ability to compel testimony.
    • Public: systemic and community concerns—local interest, jury burden, court administration, and applying foreign law.
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1782: A statute allowing U.S. courts to order discovery for use in foreign proceedings; it expands access to evidence but does not automatically justify moving the merits to U.S. courts.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit’s decision affirms a disciplined application of the mandatory three-step forum non conveniens analysis. It emphasizes that (i) alleged foreign delay must be “profound and extreme” to defeat adequacy—especially where the plaintiff helped create the delay; (ii) a foreign plaintiff’s choice of a defendant’s U.S. home forum is not enough, standing alone, to command heightened deference; and (iii) concentrated proof and witnesses abroad, together with the inefficiency and administrative risks of parallel proceedings, can “tip decidedly” toward dismissal.