Collaboration Is Crucial to Cross-Border Investigations in a GDPR World
The "Cross-Border Investigations: Protecting the Privilege and Meeting Privacy Expectations" panel at Legalweek 2019 looked at how e-discovery professionals and lawyers are adapting to the GDPR and other international privacy regulations.
January 30, 2019 at 10:02 AM
3 minute read
It took less than a day for the General Data Protection Regulation to crop up at Legalweek 2019. Tuesday's "Cross-Border Investigations: Protecting the Privilege and Meeting Privacy Expectations" panel explored the difficulties that lawyers and e-discovery professionals now face in collecting and reviewing data that spans multiple jurisdictions.
Moderator Adam Shoshtari, an attorney with Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, got the ball rolling by asking each panelist how they prepared their organization for the GDPR.
For some, the process was easier than others. Linda Johnson, lead e-discovery manager at global healthcare company GlaxoSmithKiline said their process did not change much in the wake of the GDPR. They did, however, revisit data transfer agreements with certain countries.
"We definitely worked on updating our data privacy policy to beef it up and make sure it contained a lot of the language we thought the GDPR would totally include," Johnson said.
The overall vagueness of the regulations presented a challenge to panelist Jack Thompson, who as senior manager of e-discovery and legal operations at Sanofi US was charged with revamping the company's established protocols to suit the GDPR. This involved everything from adjusting their consent form regarding daily data collections to structuring deals with the law firms handling that information.
"My hair started turning white," Thompson said.
Now that companies and e-discovery specialists have had some time to catch up to the GDPR, collecting data for international investigations can be a matter of identifying and collaborating with the right authorities.
With so many different data laws present on the world stage, establishing jurisdiction is critical. It's hard to follow the letter of the law if you're not sure whether the alphabet you're working from is French or American.
"From my perspective it was where is the investigation really centrally localized and getting that established first and foremost," Thompson said.
Once the jurisdiction is established, reaching out to local contacts can be advantageous. According to Johnson, Sulfi collaborates with local compliance authorities where necessary.
If the company has to collect data related to an internal investigation from an employee who resides in a different country, they typically involve the regional manager so that the notice isn't coming from a faceless entity.
"We're just trying to be aligned [with privacy laws]. I think on a global basis it's hard as heck, but we do try and do that," Johnson said.
Companies may be looking to simplify their approach to compliance worldwide, but Thompson doesn't see much fat to trim, especially when it comes to help navigating the different privacy regulations clashing at borders across the world.
"There's a lot of complexities in each country, and there have to be resources available," Thompson said.
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
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
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