Managing Parallel Litigation in Two Countries: A Practical Guide

Document type: Guide Practice area: Litigation — International Litigation Jurisdiction: United States, with comparative notes Last reviewed: 5 September 2026

Stage 1 — The first forty-eight hours

A foreign proceeding has appeared. Before anything else:

Get the papers, translated. The complaint or claim form, the relief sought, and the procedural posture. Have them translated professionally, because strategy will be built on them and a summary from local counsel is not enough.

Retain local counsel in the foreign forum, immediately — not to defend yet, but to advise on: the procedural timetable; what relief is available; whether jurisdiction can be contested and by when; whether a stay is available; whether a deadline is already running; and what an anti-suit injunction from a US court would mean there.

Check the deadlines. Foreign procedural deadlines are frequently short and unforgiving, and a default entered abroad is very difficult to unwind. This is the single most urgent item.

Check the contract. Is there a forum selection clause? Is it exclusive? An arbitration clause? This determines the entire strategy, and it takes ten minutes to establish.

Institute a litigation hold covering both proceedings, in all relevant jurisdictions, and consider the data protection and blocking statute implications before any collection.

Do not appear in the foreign forum without deciding what appearance means there. In some systems, appearing on the merits waives a jurisdictional objection.

Assemble the chronology. When was each action filed, in relation to which events and which rulings? A reactive foreign filing three weeks after an adverse domestic ruling is a very different fact from one filed first.

Stage 2 — The strategic assessment

Four options, and the choice should be made deliberately in the first two weeks.

Option 1 — Race to judgment

Push the favourable forum to judgment and assert it in the other.

Assess first, and this is the step most often skipped: would a judgment from the favourable forum actually be recognized in the other?

Recognition of a foreign judgment in the United States is governed by state law, commonly a uniform act, with mandatory and discretionary grounds for non-recognition.
Recognition of a US judgment abroad varies enormously, and in many civil law jurisdictions a US judgment is not enforceable at all absent a treaty.

If a US judgment will not be recognized where the assets are, the race is not worth running, and the client should be told so before spending on it.

Also assess: which forum will actually reach judgment first, on realistic timetables; whether the other forum will respect issue preclusion; and whether mandatory local law in the foreign forum would survive a domestic judgment on the contract.

Option 2 — Anti-suit injunction

Assess the thresholds honestly: same parties, and whether the domestic action is dispositive of the foreign one. The dispositive requirement defeats most applications, and the answer is frequently no unless the domestic pleading is amended to cover the foreign claims.

Then the circuit's approach. Conservative circuits require a threat to jurisdiction or to an important public policy; liberal circuits weigh the equities more broadly.

Then the agreement. Where there is an arbitration clause or an exclusive forum selection clause, the application is strong in either camp. Where the clause is non-exclusive, or absent, it is difficult.

Then the counter-injunction risk. What will the foreign court do, and what is the client's exposure there?

Option 3 — Stay or dismiss the domestic action

Where the foreign forum is genuinely more appropriate, or further advanced: forum non conveniens dismissal, or a discretionary stay. The discretionary stay is the more flexible and more achievable tool, and it preserves the domestic action rather than losing it.

Option 4 — Settle

Parallel proceedings generate pressure on both sides, which is frequently their function. Model the total cost of two proceedings plus the procedural war, present it, and open the channel early.

Stage 3 — Set up the coordination machinery

This is where parallel litigation is actually won or lost, and it is a management task.

Appoint a coordinating lead. One lawyer, in one jurisdiction, accountable for the global picture. Two sets of counsel running independently produce inconsistent positions, and the other side will find them.

Establish the machinery:

A single case chronology, maintained centrally
A single position paper: what the client says about the facts, everywhere
A shared document repository, with access managed for privilege and data protection
A standing call, weekly or fortnightly, with counsel from both forums
A single settlement authority, so that neither team negotiates without the other knowing

The position paper is the most important item. A statement made in a foreign pleading will be translated and put to the client's witness in a domestic deposition. A client that has taken inconsistent positions in two forums has a credibility problem that cannot be fixed, and it is the most common self-inflicted wound in parallel litigation.

Review every pleading in both forums, in translation, before filing. This is expensive and it is cheaper than the alternative.

Stage 4 — Manage the evidence conflicts

Cross-border proceedings generate obligations that conflict, and the conflicts must be mapped before they bite.

The asymmetry to map first:

Section 1782 permits a party to foreign litigation to obtain US-style discovery from persons found in a US district, for use abroad, without requiring that the material be discoverable in the foreign proceeding. A party with US-resident adversaries or third-party witnesses has a substantial advantage.
Conversely, a US court may order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce material located abroad, notwithstanding a foreign prohibition, applying a comity analysis.

The conflicts:

Blocking statutes in several jurisdictions prohibit producing evidence for foreign proceedings. A party subject to a US production order and a foreign prohibition has genuine exposure, and the comity analysis does not always spare it.
Data protection rules restrict transferring personal data, requiring a lawful basis, minimization, and sometimes local review before transfer. Build this into the collection protocol rather than discovering it after collection.
Privilege differs. Communications privileged in one system may not be in the other — in-house counsel communications are the recurring example — and material produced in one forum may lose protection in both.
Sequencing. Testimony given in one proceeding is available in the other, and a deposition taken early in one forum may fix the client's position before it is ready.

The protocol to establish:

Map what must be produced where, what is protected where, and where the conflicts are
Collect once, to a standard satisfying the most demanding forum, with data protection compliance built in
Review for privilege under both systems, and flag anything where the answers differ
Where a genuine conflict exists, raise it with the court early, with foreign law evidence, and seek a protocol rather than waiting for a motion to compel
Coordinate the deposition and witness sequencing so that the client's evidence is given in the right order

Stage 5 — Coordinate the witnesses

The same people will testify in both proceedings, in different formats, under different rules.

Prepare once, for both. A witness prepared separately by two sets of counsel gives two accounts.

Brief the witness on the whole picture: what is at issue in each forum, what they have said in each, and what documents exist.

Reconcile every prior statement. Witness statements, declarations, pleadings verified by the witness, and any regulatory filings. The other side will assemble them all, and an inconsistency the witness cannot explain is more damaging than the underlying fact.

Understand the format differences. A civil law witness statement is short and is followed by judicial questioning; a common law statement is long and is followed by adversarial cross-examination. A witness prepared for one format performs badly in the other.

Watch the availability problem. A witness who becomes unavailable — leaves the company, becomes ill, or declines to travel — creates a gap in both proceedings. Take the evidence early where the risk is real.

Stage 6 — Track preclusion

Findings in one proceeding may bind in the other, and the sequencing strategy depends on knowing which.

Ask, for each significant issue:

Which forum will decide it first, on realistic timetables?
Will a finding there be given preclusive effect in the other forum? Under whose law is that question decided?
Is the issue one the client expects to win or lose?
Does that suggest accelerating or delaying?

A party expecting to win an issue in Forum A has an incentive to have it decided there first. A party expecting to lose it has the opposite incentive, and delay is a legitimate tactic within the bounds of the procedural rules.

And note the asymmetry. US courts give preclusive effect to foreign judgments in appropriate circumstances; many foreign courts give little or none to US judgments. A party may be bound by an adverse foreign finding while an equivalent favourable one buys it nothing — which is a reason to be cautious about racing.

Stage 7 — Model the cost and open the settlement channel

Build the model early, and present it:

Item	Forum A	Forum B	Total
Counsel fees to judgment
Local counsel
Experts
Translation and interpretation
Discovery and document review
Anti-suit or stay motion practice
Appeals
Enforcement
Total
Amount in dispute

In a substantial share of parallel-proceedings cases, the total exceeds the amount in dispute, and putting that number in front of the client is the most useful thing counsel does.

Then open the channel. Parallel proceedings generate pressure on both sides — that is their function — and most resolve. The settlement should be documented to cover both proceedings, with mutual discontinuances, releases scoped across both, and agreement on costs in each. A settlement that resolves one and leaves the other running has resolved nothing.

Judgment recognition: the analysis that should come first

Whether to race depends entirely on whether the resulting judgment will be worth anything where it matters, and the analysis is frequently done last or not at all.

Recognition of a foreign judgment in the United States. Governed by state law, commonly a version of a uniform act. The mandatory grounds for non-recognition are that the foreign system does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process; that the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction; or that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The discretionary grounds include lack of notice, fraud depriving a party of a fair opportunity to be heard, conflict with public policy, conflict with another final judgment, and — importantly — that the proceeding was contrary to an agreement to resolve the dispute otherwise.

That last ground matters here. A foreign judgment obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement or a forum selection clause may be denied recognition on that basis, which is a substantial protection for a party that has a clause and whose counterparty ignored it.

Recognition of a US judgment abroad. There is no general treaty, and the position varies enormously:

Some jurisdictions recognize foreign judgments on a reciprocity or comity basis, subject to review
Many civil law jurisdictions require an exequatur proceeding that may involve substantive review
Several will not enforce a US judgment at all absent a treaty, or will refuse where the damages include punitive elements, or where the jurisdictional basis was one they do not recognize
Punitive and multiple damages are frequently refused as contrary to public policy, even where the compensatory portion is recognized

The practical questions to answer before deciding to race:

Where are the defendant's assets?
Would a judgment from my preferred forum be recognized there? Obtain a written opinion from local counsel — not a conversation.
On what grounds could recognition be refused, and are any of them likely here?
How long would recognition and enforcement take, and at what cost?
Would the other side's judgment be recognized against me, and where?

And the conclusion that frequently follows: where a US judgment will not be enforced where the assets are, but an arbitral award would be, the answer is not to race but to compel arbitration — which is why arbitration clauses dominate cross-border commercial contracts and why the absence of one is the root cause of most parallel-proceedings wars.

A worked sequence: the Thorvaldsen dispute

The parties. Thorvaldsen Marine, a Norwegian shipyard, and Cascadia Vessels, a US operator. A newbuilding contract with an arbitration clause seated in London, English law.

The dispute. Cascadia rejects delivery, alleging the vessel does not meet specification. Thorvaldsen says the rejection is wrongful and the vessel conforms.

Day 1. Thorvaldsen commences London arbitration under the clause.

Day 12. Cascadia files in the Western District of Washington, alleging fraud in the inducement and seeking rescission, and arguing that the fraud claim falls outside the arbitration clause.

The first forty-eight hours

Thorvaldsen's counsel obtains the US complaint, has it translated for the client, retains US counsel, and checks the deadlines. The critical finding is in the arbitration clause, which covers "any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity, or termination."

That wording covers the fraud claim. A challenge to the contract's validity is expressly within the clause, and under the separability principle the arbitration agreement survives a challenge to the main contract.

The strategic assessment

Race? No — the arbitration will be quicker and the award will be enforceable in the United States under the New York Convention, while a US judgment would face difficulties in Norway.

Anti-suit injunction? Yes, and it is a strong application, because Cascadia has sued in breach of an arbitration agreement. The circuit split matters less here: the federal policy favouring arbitration supplies the public policy the conservative approach requires, and the equities are clear under the liberal approach.

Thresholds: same parties — yes. Dispositive — yes, because the arbitration will determine the validity of the contract and therefore the fraud claim.

But Thorvaldsen's counsel considers the alternative first: a motion to compel arbitration and stay the US action. This is the better first move — it is the ordinary remedy, it does not require the injunction analysis, and it does not risk the comity objections. The anti-suit injunction is the fallback if the US court declines.

Counter-injunction risk? Low. Cascadia is a US company with US assets; there is no third forum.

Execution

Week 3. Thorvaldsen moves in Washington to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss, citing the clause's breadth and separability.

Week 3. In parallel, it applies to the English court for an anti-suit injunction restraining Cascadia from prosecuting the US action — available in England on the breach-of-agreement ground and granted readily where the seat is London.

Week 8. The US court grants the motion to compel and stays the action. The English injunction becomes unnecessary and is not pursued to a final order.

The arbitration proceeds. Thorvaldsen's coordinating counsel maintains a single position paper, and the statements filed in the US action are reconciled with the arbitration pleadings before any inconsistency can develop.

Month 20. Award for Thorvaldsen. Confirmed in Washington under the New York Convention, where the stayed action provides a convenient vehicle.

Total elapsed time: twenty-two months. Had Thorvaldsen raced two full proceedings, it would have spent three times as much and faced an enforcement problem at the end.

The lesson. The arbitration clause did the work, and the correct first move was the ordinary one — a motion to compel — rather than the dramatic one. Anti-suit injunctions are the tool for when the ordinary remedies are unavailable, not the first response.

Using section 1782

Where a client is party to foreign litigation and its adversary or key third parties are in the United States, section 1782 is frequently the most valuable procedural tool available, and it should be assessed early.

What it provides. A US district court may order a person found or residing in the district to give testimony or produce documents for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, on application by the tribunal or by any interested person.

The statutory requirements: the person is found or resides in the district; the material is for use in a proceeding before a foreign or international tribunal; and the applicant is an interested person.

Then the discretionary factors: whether the person is a participant in the foreign proceeding, in which case the foreign tribunal can order production itself; the nature of the foreign tribunal and its receptivity to US judicial assistance; whether the request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions; and whether the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome.

Why it is so valuable.

No requirement that the material be discoverable in the foreign proceeding. A party in a civil law system with no general discovery can obtain US-style production.
Available to any interested person, including a party, a prospective party, and in some circumstances others.
Reaches third parties — banks, advisers, counterparties — not just the adversary.
Ex parte applications are common, giving the applicant a first mover advantage.
The material obtained is usable in the foreign proceeding and frequently transforms it.

The limits to advise on:

The proceeding must be before a "foreign or international tribunal." The Supreme Court has held that this reaches governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies and not private commercial arbitral tribunals, which removed a substantial category of applications.
Privileges apply, and the responding party may resist on that basis.
The discretionary factors bite, particularly where the target is a participant in the foreign proceeding and the foreign court could order production itself.

The defensive side. A client with a US presence, litigating abroad, should expect a section 1782 application and should:

Monitor for ex parte applications in districts where it has a presence
Move to quash or to modify promptly, on the discretionary factors and on burden
Raise the foreign tribunal's receptivity with evidence, where the foreign court would not permit the discovery
Assert privileges under both systems
Consider whether the foreign court would take a view of a party circumventing its procedures

The strategic point. Section 1782 creates a genuine asymmetry, and it should be mapped before the forum strategy is set — because a party that will face broad US discovery for use abroad, while its adversary faces none, may prefer a different forum entirely.

Errors that recur

Missing a foreign procedural deadline in the first two weeks. A default abroad is very hard to unwind.
Appearing in the foreign forum without knowing what appearance means there — in some systems it waives jurisdictional objections.
Not checking whether the forum clause is exclusive. It determines everything and takes ten minutes.
Racing without assessing recognition. A US judgment that will not be enforced where the assets are is not worth the race.
Running two sets of counsel independently, producing inconsistent positions the other side will find.
Preparing witnesses separately for each forum.
Collecting documents before mapping the data protection and blocking statute constraints.
Reviewing privilege under one system only, and producing material privileged in the other.
Seeking an anti-suit injunction as the first move rather than a motion to compel or a stay.
Failing to assess the counter-injunction risk before applying.
Not modelling the total cost, and discovering in year two that it exceeds the claim.
Settling one proceeding and leaving the other running.

Seeking a stay rather than an injunction

The discretionary stay is under-used and is frequently the better tool, because it asks the court to manage its own docket rather than to restrain a party from using a foreign court.

The basis. The inherent power to control the docket, confirmed in Landis, requiring a balance of the competing interests and a showing that the stay is a proper exercise of judgment. It is not abstention, and it does not require the exceptional circumstances that abstention demands.

When it works:

The foreign proceeding is substantially further advanced
The foreign forum will decide the same issues, and its findings will be given preclusive effect
The foreign forum applies the governing law
The foreign proceeding involves parties not before the domestic court
The domestic action is duplicative and the movant did not choose it
Efficiency: a stay avoids duplicative discovery, inconsistent findings, and wasted judicial effort

What to put in the motion:

A chronology showing the relative progress of the two proceedings
A declaration from foreign counsel on the foreign timetable, the issues to be decided, and the expected date of judgment
The overlap between the two proceedings, issue by issue
The preclusive effect a foreign judgment would have domestically
The prejudice from proceeding in parallel: cost, inconsistency, and burden on witnesses
A proposed end date or review date, because open-ended stays are refused

Ask for a limited stay where a full one will not be granted: a stay of discovery pending the foreign decision; a stay of specified claims; or a stay until a defined foreign milestone. A court reluctant to stop entirely will frequently pause partially.

The tactical advantage over an injunction. A stay motion does not accuse the other side of vexatious conduct, does not raise comity objections, does not invite a counter-injunction, and does not require the dispositive threshold. It asks for less and gets granted more often — and where the objective is simply to avoid litigating twice, it achieves it.

And the defensive point. A party opposing a stay should emphasize the "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise jurisdiction; the differences between the proceedings; the prejudice from delay, including evidence deterioration and limitations concerns; and any inadequacy in the foreign forum. A stay indefinitely deferring a claim is a functional dismissal, and courts are alert to that.

Settling both proceedings at once

A settlement that resolves one proceeding and leaves the other running has resolved nothing, and the documentation requires attention that a domestic settlement does not.

The components:

Mutual releases, drafted to cover all claims in both proceedings, and any claim that could have been brought in either
Discontinuance or dismissal in each forum, in the form each requires — the mechanics differ, and in some systems a discontinuance requires the court's permission or the other party's consent
Withdrawal of any interim relief: injunctions, attachments, arrests, and security
Release of any security provided, and return of any bond
Costs in each forum, addressed expressly — some systems award costs as a matter of course on discontinuance
Confidentiality, and what may be said publicly in each jurisdiction
Tax treatment of any payment in both jurisdictions
Governing law and forum for the settlement agreement itself, which should be a single forum — usually arbitration, so that a dispute about the settlement does not restart parallel litigation

The sequencing problem. Discontinuance in one forum before the other is complete leaves the settling party exposed. The mechanism is an escrow or a simultaneous exchange: the discontinuance documents for both forums are held in escrow and released simultaneously against payment, or the settlement is conditional on both discontinuances being effective.

Where an arbitration is on foot, consider requesting an award on agreed terms, which is enforceable under the New York Convention — materially better than a settlement contract where payment is in instalments.

Where a foreign judgment already exists, address it: the settlement should provide for its satisfaction and for any registration to be vacated.

Practical steps:

Instruct local counsel in each forum on the discontinuance mechanics before the terms are agreed
Prepare all discontinuance documents in advance
Confirm who must sign and whether court approval is required
Escrow or exchange simultaneously
Confirm, after the fact, that each proceeding is actually closed — and diarize a check, because dockets do not always reflect what the parties intended

A decision framework

Work through these in order. The answers determine the strategy, and most of them are available in the first two weeks.

1. Is there a dispute resolution clause, and is it exclusive? If arbitration or exclusive forum: move to compel or to enforce it. This is the ordinary remedy and it is the right first move. An anti-suit injunction is the fallback. If non-exclusive or absent: continue.

2. Where are the counterparty's assets, and would my preferred forum's judgment be recognized there? If no: the race is not worth running. Consider whether the foreign forum is where the case must be fought. If yes: continue.

3. Is the domestic action dispositive of the foreign one? If no: an anti-suit injunction fails at the threshold. Consider amending to make it so, or move to another option. If yes: continue.

4. Which circuit, and what is required there? Conservative: a threat to jurisdiction or an important public policy. Duplication is not enough. Liberal: the equities, including duplication and vexatiousness.

5. What is the counter-injunction risk, and where is the client exposed? If significant: weigh whether escalation serves the client, or merely raises the cost of a dispute that will settle.

6. Would a stay achieve the objective? If the goal is simply not to litigate twice: a stay asks for less and is granted more often, and it does not invite escalation.

7. What does the whole thing cost, against the amount in dispute? If the cost approaches or exceeds the claim: say so, in writing, and open the settlement channel.

And running throughout: appoint a coordinating lead; maintain one position paper; map the evidence conflicts before collecting; prepare witnesses once; and track which findings will bind where.

The single most useful thing counsel does in parallel litigation is not winning a motion. It is preventing the client from taking two positions, in two forums, that cannot both be true — because that is the wound the other side cannot be stopped from exploiting, and it is entirely self-inflicted.

Interim relief across borders

Parallel proceedings frequently involve a race for interim relief as much as for judgment, and the tools differ by jurisdiction in ways worth knowing.

Attachment and freezing relief. Several jurisdictions offer pre-judgment attachment more readily than US courts do, and a party seeking security should assess where it can obtain it. A freezing order with worldwide effect, available in some common law jurisdictions, binds the respondent personally and can be a decisive early move — though it requires a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and full and frank disclosure, breach of which sets the order aside.

Arrest of assets. In shipping and aviation disputes, the arrest of a vessel or aircraft in a favourable jurisdiction is frequently the most effective step available, providing security and creating immediate settlement pressure.

Evidence preservation. Orders to preserve or to permit inspection are available in various forms, and in some jurisdictions ex parte.

Interim relief in aid of arbitration. Most modern arbitration statutes permit a court to grant interim measures in support of an arbitration, including one seated elsewhere. This is frequently overlooked: a party in a London arbitration may obtain an attachment from a US court against US assets without prejudicing the arbitration agreement, and the better drafted clauses say so expressly.

Emergency arbitrators, available under most institutional rules, can grant relief before a tribunal is constituted — usually within two to three weeks. Whether the resulting order is enforceable varies by jurisdiction, and counsel should check before relying on it.

The coordination problem. Interim relief obtained in one forum may conflict with what another has ordered or would order, and a party that obtains an aggressive ex parte order abroad may find the domestic court unsympathetic. Coordinate the applications, and be prepared to explain in each forum what has been sought and obtained in the other — because full and frank disclosure obligations in some jurisdictions require it, and concealment sets orders aside.

A practical instruction. In the first two weeks, ask local counsel in every relevant jurisdiction one question: what interim relief could we obtain here, how quickly, and on what showing? The answer frequently identifies a step that changes the dispute's dynamics far more than any motion in the main proceedings.

Working with foreign counsel

Most of the failures in parallel litigation are failures of the relationship between two sets of lawyers, and a few practices prevent them.

Choose for the case, not the roster. The foreign firm should be selected for its experience in the specific forum and subject matter, and for whether it can work in the coordinating language. A firm that cannot produce timely written advice in English will slow every decision.

Set the reporting expectations at the outset. What is reported, to whom, how often, and in what form. A standing weekly note covering developments, upcoming deadlines, and decisions required is worth more than long ad hoc memoranda.

Establish who decides. The client decides; the coordinating lead recommends; foreign counsel advises on their forum. Ambiguity here produces filings nobody approved.

Circulate every filing before it goes out, in translation, with enough time for review. This is expensive and it is the single most valuable coordination practice, because it is how inconsistent positions are caught.

Brief foreign counsel on the whole dispute, not just their piece. A lawyer who does not know what is being argued elsewhere cannot spot the inconsistency.

Understand the professional differences. Privilege, conflicts rules, and duties to the court vary. In some jurisdictions in-house counsel communications are not privileged, and in some, counsel owe disclosure duties that would surprise a US lawyer. Ask.

Agree the budget and the billing conventions early, including whether fees are recoverable in that forum and what documentation is required to recover them.

And be candid about the strategy. Foreign counsel asked only for technical advice, without being told the objective, will optimize for the wrong thing. Tell them what the client is actually trying to achieve — including that the case may be intended to create settlement pressure rather than to be won — because a lawyer who knows that gives better advice about how to run it.

Quick reference

First forty-eight hours: get the papers translated; retain foreign counsel; check the deadlines, which are short and unforgiving abroad; check whether the forum clause is exclusive; institute a litigation hold with data protection in mind; and do not appear abroad without knowing what appearance means there.

The strategic choice is among four options: race, enjoin, stay, or settle. Make it deliberately in the first two weeks.

Before racing, answer the recognition question. Where are the assets, and would your judgment be enforced there? In many civil law jurisdictions a US judgment is not enforceable at all.

Before seeking an injunction, test the dispositive threshold, know your circuit's approach, check whether you have an exclusive clause or an arbitration agreement — which makes the application far stronger — and assess the counter-injunction risk.

Consider a stay first. It asks for less, is granted more often, does not invite escalation, and achieves the objective where the objective is simply not to litigate twice.

Set up the machinery: a coordinating lead, one position paper, one chronology, a shared repository, a standing call, and every filing reviewed in translation before it goes out.

Map the evidence asymmetries. Section 1782 gives a party to foreign litigation US-style discovery for use abroad; blocking statutes and data protection rules cut the other way; and privilege differs between systems.

Prepare witnesses once, for both, and reconcile every prior statement.

Track preclusion, because it determines the sequencing strategy.

Model the total cost against the amount in dispute, and present it — that number produces more settlements than any motion.

And settle both proceedings together, with simultaneous discontinuances, releases scoped across both, interim relief withdrawn, and a single forum for any dispute about the settlement itself.