4 Tips for an Effective E-discovery Plan in China
Unsure about China's regulatory environment? These tips can help navigate legal challenges that affect cross-border data collection.
September 18, 2018 at 05:00 AM
6 minute read
|
Collecting data in China for cross-border litigation or investigations can pose challenging legal and regulatory issues for multinational companies. Whether conducting internal investigations, responding to litigation or U.S. regulatory inquiries, or supporting audits or due diligence reviews, the process of collecting, preserving and transferring data has been complicated by a web of recent enforcement actions, new laws and regulations, as well as geopolitical uncertainties.
Given this dynamic regulatory environment, to ensure that any data collection in China is conducted successfully and without regulatory scrutiny, it is critical to map out a timely and well-documented e-discovery plan that comprehensively addresses compliance with local laws. Having such a process in place can also go a long way to address potential post-collection inquiries.
Below we set out a number of recommendations for mapping out a China e-discovery plan in light of these considerations.
1. Determine the scope of the discovery exercise
Having a clear grasp of the scope of the exercise is fundamental before you consider the legal and regulatory issues that may affect your collection. This includes understanding and identifying the different types of data involved, including:
- Whether the data resides on company premises or elsewhere (eg, third-party data centers);
- Whether the data-containing devices are company or employee-owned;
- Whether the data is encrypted; and
- The specific file types involved.
Additionally, with the widespread adoption of smartphones and social media apps (including a very popular messaging app in China called WeChat), a new set of potentially in-scope data has emerged, which includes business communications residing outside of traditional desktop email collections as well as machine data (eg, metadata, smart and connected devices). This has become increasingly relevant in litigation involving the transfer of intellectual property, financial fraud and other business disputes.
After considering what types of data are involved, you will need to better understand how that data will be used including determining whether the data would need to be transferred to third parties (e.g. professional advisers, group headquarters or a regulator), transferred abroad, or reviewed for internal purposes only.
2. Understand the use of personal data and other regulated data in China
Data protection is becoming more complex in China. As a result of more stringent laws and regulations, many companies have had to revisit their China data policies and obtain consent prior to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data. Collection in China is further complicated by recent trends towards “data localization”—ie, certain data having to remain in mainland China. Given the rapidly-evolving regulatory environment, it is important to keep abreast of recent developments, plan ahead and understand your data.
Will you need to consider personal data?
In China, personal data is defined as including all kinds of information, recorded electronically or through other means, that, whether taken alone or combined with other information, is sufficient to identify a natural person's information. This includes but is not limited to a person's name, contact details, photographs, health information, personnel file, and banking/payment information.
Sensitive personal data has a very different meaning in China than in most other countries. It means personal data which, if disclosed or abused, will lead to an adverse impact on the data subject. Examples of sensitive personal data in China include mobile phone numbers, login information and web browsing data.
Individuals must be properly notified and provide their express consent prior to any attempt to collect, use or disclose their personal data. Explicit consent is required for sensitive personal data and overseas data transfers. In China, the requirement to obtain consent can be very difficult to manage in practice at the time an investigation arises since China's data protection laws and regulations, unlike those in other jurisdictions, do not contain comprehensive exemptions to the consent requirement in the context of investigations, litigation or due diligence.
Additional compliance hurdles, such as impact assessments, may also need to be addressed in parallel with the investigation if external advisers or overseas data transfers are to be involved.
Other regulated data
Some other (non-personal) categories of data are also heavily regulated in China. Such data should only be collected, transferred, exported overseas and/or reviewed with careful consideration and planning.
Some of the key data categories include:
- “State secrets” as outlined under the PRC Guarding State Secrets Law;
- “Important data” as outlined under the PRC Cybersecurity Law; and
- Data in certain regulated sectors such as banking, healthcare, securities, scientific and insurance.
If your data scope contains any of the above types of data, caution must be exercised to ensure that the data collection process can either exclude the data or address the legal concerns in an appropriate and compliant manner. Failure to do so could result in civil or criminal liability, including fines, sanctions, revocation of license, detention and/or imprisonment.
3. Plan your review process
The next key step is to determine the most effective process to collect and review the data. The review process should be conducted in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and in compliance with applicable laws. Common factors to consider may include:
- Where the review would take place;
- The type of platform to host the review; and
- Whether to use local or global resources.
For bilingual and Chinese documents, it may be prudent to bring in bilingual attorneys and translators to address review tasks. You may also consider engaging an experienced forensic technology professional to assist with the data collection and hosting. This becomes increasingly important for larger and/or more complex data sets.
4. Other issues
When investigations or inquiries relate to foreign regulatory bodies residing outside of China, there is a heightened risk of miscommunication and misinformation. This may impede the collection process, or even cause further legal or discovery complications. An experienced counsel who has seen it all would be invaluable in helping map out strategy, avoid common pitfalls and mitigate risks.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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