See Ji v. Jling Inc., No. 15-CV-4194, 2019 WL 1441130, at *10-11 (E.D.N.Y. March 31, 2019) (striking and prohibiting any further testimony taken remotely of plaintiff in China).
Absent some showing that the evidence produced is only marginally relevant to the issues in this case, threatens the sovereign interests of China, and/or would likely be obtainable through the Hague Convention procedures, the Court declines to require resort to those procedures. The district judge in Ji v. Jling, Inc., 2019 WL 1441130, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019), identified another issue to be considered when determining the reasonableness of U.S. discovery procedures used abroad. Where the production of evidence or testimony places only the party seeking to use the American judicial system to enforce its rights in jeopardy under Chinese law, use of the federal discovery procedures without recourse to the Hague Convention may be reasonable. If, however, discovery will expose a non-consenting party to sanctions in the foreign jurisdiction, that factor will weigh in favor of invoking the more cumbersome Convention procedures.
Id. (declining to resolve question of whether New York or federal common law governs the potential settlement of claims arising under federal and state law); Ji v. Jling Inc. , No. 15-CV-4194 (SIL), 2019 WL 1441130, at *7 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (noting Second Circuit has not ruled as to application of federal or state law, but that federal common law and New York law are "materially indistinguishable"), appeal dismissed , 799 F. App'x 77 (2d Cir. 2020). "A party seeking to enforce a purported settlement agreement has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the parties actually entered into such an agreement."