The effects of cultural differences and data privacy regulations on cross-border litigation
Many countries and regional organizations have enacted strict guidelines, regulations and even criminal laws regarding the use, processing or removal of personal data beyond certain borders.
February 06, 2014 at 03:57 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Today's global economy has generated multinational companies of all sizes, with offices spread across continents and jurisdictions that render the “copy and ship” approach to discovery 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 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.
Stop in the name of the law!
Once you have identified the appropriate resources to manage your cross-border discovery matter, it is critical to understand the regulations of the entities that have jurisdiction over the discovery data, whether it be paper or electronic. In today's world of increased personal privacy protection, many countries and regional organizations have enacted strict guidelines, regulations and even criminal laws regarding the use, processing or removal of personal data beyond certain borders without the expressed written consent of the individual. Most notable in this regard would be France and the European Union, but there are other countries throughout the world following the lead of Europe.
Beyond data privacy regulations, it is also important to note that there are countries that have strict regulations about the export of data for matters of secrecy and national security. China typically requires a detailed review of all data related to any organization associated with the government or Communist Party before it is permitted to leave the country.
While all of this may appear intimidating and burdensome, much of the stress can be relieved by retaining local counsel with intimate knowledge of the jurisdiction as well as relying on regional legal technology resources that reduce the need to turn to the traditional “box and ship” approach to international litigation support.
It's off to work we go . . .
The United States is well known for the “can do, get it done, 24/7/365” approach within its business culture, where working extended, night or weekend hours is a common practice, especially with looming deadlines. However, you will often find that this cultural aspect is unique to the United States, and most countries have cultures — and even regulations — that promote a balanced lifestyle and a standard eight-hour workday. As such, project planning for cross-border discovery matters will always involve additional research, typically require additional staff if there is a human component and most likely take a longer time to complete in comparison to projects similar in size undertaken in the United States.
Advanced preparation may certainly alleviate these potential human resource issues. As one example, consider that many buildings will be closed nights and weekends with a need for executive approval to be opened for project use. There are many stories of international project teams being unable to work over critical “catch-up” weekends because they were not cleared to be in the building or the business was simply closed.
Know before you go
Cultural differences and data privacy regulations can have a significant impact on cross-border litigation, creating potential challenges for companies, vendors and law firms involved in the discovery process. These challenges can be mitigated through careful preparation and the understanding that other jurisdictions and cultures can, and will, operate in a different manner.
Part three of this series will cover the innovative use of technology to reduce discovery challenges within cross-border litigation.
Today's global economy has generated multinational companies of all sizes, with offices spread across continents and jurisdictions that render the “copy and ship” approach to discovery 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 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.
Stop in the name of the law!
Once you have identified the appropriate resources to manage your cross-border discovery matter, it is critical to understand the regulations of the entities that have jurisdiction over the discovery data, whether it be paper or electronic. In today's world of increased personal privacy protection, many countries and regional organizations have enacted strict guidelines, regulations and even criminal laws regarding the use, processing or removal of personal data beyond certain borders without the expressed written consent of the individual. Most notable in this regard would be France and the European Union, but there are other countries throughout the world following the lead of Europe.
Beyond data privacy regulations, it is also important to note that there are countries that have strict regulations about the export of data for matters of secrecy and national security. China typically requires a detailed review of all data related to any organization associated with the government or Communist Party before it is permitted to leave the country.
While all of this may appear intimidating and burdensome, much of the stress can be relieved by retaining local counsel with intimate knowledge of the jurisdiction as well as relying on regional legal technology resources that reduce the need to turn to the traditional “box and ship” approach to international litigation support.
It's off to work we go . . .
The United States is well known for the “can do, get it done, 24/7/365” approach within its business culture, where working extended, night or weekend hours is a common practice, especially with looming deadlines. However, you will often find that this cultural aspect is unique to the United States, and most countries have cultures — and even regulations — that promote a balanced lifestyle and a standard eight-hour workday. As such, project planning for cross-border discovery matters will always involve additional research, typically require additional staff if there is a human component and most likely take a longer time to complete in comparison to projects similar in size undertaken in the United States.
Advanced preparation may certainly alleviate these potential human resource issues. As one example, consider that many buildings will be closed nights and weekends with a need for executive approval to be opened for project use. There are many stories of international project teams being unable to work over critical “catch-up” weekends because they were not cleared to be in the building or the business was simply closed.
Know before you go
Cultural differences and data privacy regulations can have a significant impact on cross-border litigation, creating potential challenges for companies, vendors and law firms involved in the discovery process. These challenges can be mitigated through careful preparation and the understanding that other jurisdictions and cultures can, and will, operate in a different manner.
Part three of this series will cover the innovative use of technology to reduce discovery challenges within cross-border litigation.
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 All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
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