Reducing discovery challenges within cross border litigation
Contrary to popular belief, it can be extremely difficult to find experienced litigation support and electronic discovery resources outside the United States.
January 03, 2014 at 03:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Today's global economy has generated multi-national companies of all sizes, with offices spread across continents and jurisdictions that render the “copy and ship” approach to discovery as a potential disaster. But can the use of mobile technology and cloud computing mitigate these challenges? This article will look at these challenges and outline what your company should be aware of and what precautions you can take to ensure you avoid any disasters. This three-part series will consist of the following topics: available resources (vendors, consultants) outside of the United States; effects of cultural differences and data privacy regulations; and innovative use of technology.
Does litigation support have a passport?
Contrary to popular belief, it can be extremely difficult to find experienced litigation support and electronic discovery resources outside the United States. Where one might expect to simply make a quick call to any number of locations in Europe or Asia, there simply are not any local vendors or consultants and, if there are, their qualifications are questionable. Yes, those horrible words “travel cost” from a regional hub must be discussed!
Why is this the case? Quite simply, there is not enough demand to support such businesses, as these countries are within civil law jurisdictions, not the common law that is practiced in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India, Singapore and many former British colonies. Discovery is not part of civil law, and thus there is not a demand for an industry to support it. In fact, in many countries, discovery is actually frowned upon, making the entire process quite challenging when supporting a matter based in the United States.
Fortunately, within each region there are focal cities to use as resource hubs for your litigation support and e-discovery requirement, with vendors and consultants able to nimbly and knowledgably leverage local resources to capture paper and electronic data as required for your case. Alternatively, some of the large accounting and consulting firms have in-house talent in certain offices — or which can be moved from office to office.
Destination e-discovery
Africa: Very little litigation support resources exist in Africa outside of South Africa, where those resources exist in Johannesburg and Cape Town.
Asia: Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo have the most litigation support resources in the Asia-Pacific region, with Singapore being a trendsetter in the region for their efforts to become a hub for law, arbitration and legal technology.
Europe: London remains the central resource of litigation support in Europe, with a handful of vendors scattered across the continent primarily supporting transactional work.
South America: Brazil has a growing litigation support and electronic discovery industry centered in Sao Paulo, with other South American countries growing at a slower pace as FCPA investigations and due diligence matters grow within the region.
This is how we do it…
Well, that statement simply does not matter when you are working in a foreign country, and it is best to take a different approach to discovery, both in budgeting and in timelines. A last-minute, bottom-dollar request to image hard drives in Hanoi or scan boxes of paper in Bucharest will simply end up a mess, if it is able to be undertaken at all. Attorneys and end clients need to be prepared for extended timeframes and budgets in comparison to what is typically experienced in the United States.
Some key points to consider with cross border discovery matters:
- Fees will rarely be the same as they are in the United States, as there is less competition.
- Some countries require visas for entry, and that process can sometimes be measured in weeks.
- Customs can tie up equipment or hard drive shipments for days without notice or reason.
- Regulations make it a crime to ship personal data beyond certain borders.
- Some cities do not have frequent air or rail access to enable quick trips.
And finally, various cultural and location differences may impact the success of a cross-border discovery matter. These will be discussed in Part 2 of this series.
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
© 2025 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 AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readInside Track: AI Is Sure to Fray Big Law's Devotion to Billable Hour
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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