UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WESTINGHOUSE OVERSEAS SERVICE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                              No. 95-2168

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE INDUSTRIES,
LIMITED,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-94-2513-WMN)

Argued: April 3, 1996

Decided: April 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Donald E. Sharpe, PIPER & MARBURY, L.L.P., Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael H. Selter, GRAHAM &
JAMES, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William L.
Reynolds, Quincy M. Crawford, PIPER & MARBURY, L.L.P., Balti-
more, Maryland; H. Alan Jones, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORPORATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Westinghouse Overseas Service Corporation ("Westinghouse")
filed this action against Australian Defence Industries, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Westing-
house alleged claims for breach of contract and for misappropriation
of trade secrets. The district court dismissed the action on the basis
of forum non conveniens in favor of the Australian Capital Territory
Court.

A court may dismiss an action under forum non conveniens when
the relevant public and private interests strongly favor trial in an alter-
native forum. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 

, 255 (1981);
Kontoulas v. A. H. Robins Co., 

, 315 (4th Cir. 1984).
"The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. It may be reversed only where there has
been a clear abuse of discretion; where the court has considered all
relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of
these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial defer-
ence." Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257.

The district court found that the private interest factors did not
favor either forum: each party possessed copies of the relevant docu-
ments near its desired forum, and each party would be equally incon-
venienced by having to travel to the other country to depose
witnesses. Westinghouse Overseas Serv. Corp. v. Australian Defence
Indus., Civil Action No. WMN-94-2513, mem. at 6 (D. Md. May 26,
1995). On the other hand, the district court found that the public inter-
est factors strongly favored litigating this case in the Australian Capi-
tal Territory. In the district court's view, the fact that the law of the
Australian Capital Territory applies to the breach of contract claims,
together with the fact that Westinghouse submitted to the jurisdiction
in the Australian Capital Territory, constituted strong reasons to dis-
miss this action in favor of the Australian forum. Id. at 9.

                     2
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
balancing the public and private interests in this case. We therefore
affirm the district court's dismissal of Westinghouse's action upon the
claim of forum non conveniens.

AFFIRMED

                    3