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 AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readTrending Stories
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