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
© 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Delaware Supreme Court Names Civil Litigator to Serve as New Chief Disciplinary Counsel
- 2Inside Track: Why Relentless Self-Promoters Need Not Apply for GC Posts
- 3Fresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
- 4Ex-Kline & Specter Associate Drops Lawsuit Against the Firm
- 5Am Law 100 Lateral Partner Hiring Rose in 2024: Report
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