Credit: josefkubes/Shutterstock.com

A federal judge hearing the Mercedes-Benz emissions testing class action has rejected the carmaker's claims that identifying custodians of relevant documents violates European Union privacy laws.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Dickson ruled Wednesday that considerations of international comity do not relieve Mercedes-Benz of its obligations under U.S. law, and that the confidentiality order covering discovery sufficiently protects unredacted personal data of EU citizens.

Mercedes-Benz appealed a ruling by Special Master Dennis Cavanaugh calling for the unredacted disclosure of names, positions, titles or contact information of relevant current and former employees of the company.

Cavanaugh's ruling noted that a confidentiality order designating such information as highly confidential "sufficiently balances the EU's interest in protecting its citizen's private data and the U.S. legal system's interest in preserving and maintaining the integrity of the broad discovery provisions set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

But Mercedes-Benz argued in its appeal that providing such unredacted information, even with the confidentiality order in place, renders EU citizen's private data unprotected and is contrary to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation adopted in 2016.

Dickson noted that Cavanaugh issued his decision after considering a five-part international comity analysis adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1987 decision, Societe National Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. That test requires considering the requested documents or information's importance to the litigation, the degree of specificity in the request, whether the information originated in the United States, the availability of alternate means of securing the information, and the extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests of the United States.

Dickson also cited Cavanaugh's finding that the United States has "a strong interest in protecting U.S. consumers and therefore allowing discovery into defendants' alleged acts," which he based on the consideration that Mercedes-Benz is accused in the litigation of unlawfully misleading consumers into purchasing certain diesel-powered vehicles by misrepresenting their environmental impact. He rejected claims by Mercedes-Benz that Cavanaugh failed to properly consider the EU's "weighty interest in protecting its citizens' privacy," and that a violation of the GDPR would place it in legal jeopardy, damage its reputation and damage the morale of its workforce.

"The court finds these arguments unavailing," Dickson wrote. "The special master properly weighed national interests implicated in this matter, and found that, on balance, disclosing names, job positions, titles or professional contact information of relevant current or former employees … fairly balanced the parties' rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mercedes defendants' GDPR concerns."

Lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C., and Squire Patton Boggs in San Francisco, who represent Daimler AG and Mercedes-Benz USA, did not respond to requests for comment.

Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle, who represents the plaintiffs, said of the decision, "We are pleased with the ruling as this issue has deadlocked the progress of the case as defendants have been using the issue to delay production of documents. Now we get to peek under the hood."