A Balancing Act: Mitigating Data Privacy Risks in Cross-Border Discovery
The intersection of foreign laws governing data collection and cross-border discovery operations continues to be a potentially volatile conjunction.
March 29, 2021 at 04:42 PM
8 minute read
The intersection of foreign laws governing data collection and cross-border discovery operations continues to be a potentially volatile conjunction. Global enterprises have been cautioned to tread carefully when responding to U.S.-driven discovery requests, as expansive discovery exercises, so common in the U.S. under federal and state laws of civil procedure, can be completely foreign and often legally problematic in jurisdictions abroad.
Accordingly, discovery requests implicating custodians and data outside the U.S. can potentially put organizations in a Catch-22: either fall short of their discovery obligations on the one hand or fall afoul of legislation in other nations prohibiting or limiting data collection and transfer to the U.S. on the other. Laws potentially conflicting with discovery obligations include blocking statutes, requirements pertaining to works council agreements and, perhaps most significantly, data privacy regulations.
In particular, it has been EU data privacy regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation and its predecessor the Data Protection Directive of 1995 that have threatened to pose the most significant potential roadblocks to discovery requests. Given the care with which personal data must be treated under the GDPR (security requirements, data minimization obligations, rights afforded data subjects), accountability for those handling such data and the regulatory and civil fines possible under the regulation, cross-border discovery across the EU seems to warrant an especially heightened level of scrutiny.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllScammers Target Lawyers Across Country With Fake Court Notices
Unlocking Your Lawyers' Rainmaking Potential: A Coaching Guide
5 Ways Small and Midsize Law Firms Can Win More Pitches (and Improve Realization Rates)
Trending Stories
- 1Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
- 2Anticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
- 3Deal Watch: What Dealmakers Are Thankful for in 2024
- 4'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
- 5Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250