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 AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending 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