Enforcement of U.S. Electronic Discovery Law Against Foreign Companies: Should U.S. Courts Give Effect to the EU Data Protection Directive?

Kristen A. Knapp
{"title":"Enforcement of U.S. Electronic Discovery Law Against Foreign Companies: Should U.S. Courts Give Effect to the EU Data Protection Directive?","authors":"Kristen A. Knapp","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1661862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the U.S. Supreme Court first considered the conflict between U.S. discovery rules and foreign non-disclosure law in 1958, a clear standard regarding how to enforce U.S. law against foreign domiciled companies has yet to emerge. As a result of the 2006 ammendments to the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning electronic discovery (“e-discovery�?) procedures “[m]ore and more companies with global operations are finding themselves enmeshed in e-discovery that requires a greater understanding of the issues and laws from a global perspective�? because “[i]t is challenging to navigate and manage e-discovery when you have parent companies based overseas or U.S.-based companies with foreign subsidiaries.�? This paper looks at, in light of the 2006 amendments and the lack of case law regarding the affect of the 2006 amendments, whether the enforcement techniques, as applied to “paper�? discovery should be applied to e-discovery and whether there is anything specific to the nature of e-discovery that necessitates a change in the application of the law. Specifically, the paper addresses how the European data privacy regime may affect the application of paper discovery enforcement techniques to e-discovery. The paper suggests that it would be unwise for U.S. courts to afford the European Data Privacy regime significant deference. Instead, the European Data Privacy regime should be treated with skepticism, similarly to how the U.S. courts have viewed “blocking statutes�? contained in foreign law. In particular, treating the EU Data Privacy regime with skepticism will help to prevent the creation of perverse incentives for companies to store their data abroad that hope to avoid legitimate discovery production requests under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by raising the transaction costs for such behavior.","PeriodicalId":228651,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Evidentiary Procedure eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Evidentiary Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1661862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Although the U.S. Supreme Court first considered the conflict between U.S. discovery rules and foreign non-disclosure law in 1958, a clear standard regarding how to enforce U.S. law against foreign domiciled companies has yet to emerge. As a result of the 2006 ammendments to the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning electronic discovery (“e-discovery�?) procedures “[m]ore and more companies with global operations are finding themselves enmeshed in e-discovery that requires a greater understanding of the issues and laws from a global perspective�? because “[i]t is challenging to navigate and manage e-discovery when you have parent companies based overseas or U.S.-based companies with foreign subsidiaries.�? This paper looks at, in light of the 2006 amendments and the lack of case law regarding the affect of the 2006 amendments, whether the enforcement techniques, as applied to “paper�? discovery should be applied to e-discovery and whether there is anything specific to the nature of e-discovery that necessitates a change in the application of the law. Specifically, the paper addresses how the European data privacy regime may affect the application of paper discovery enforcement techniques to e-discovery. The paper suggests that it would be unwise for U.S. courts to afford the European Data Privacy regime significant deference. Instead, the European Data Privacy regime should be treated with skepticism, similarly to how the U.S. courts have viewed “blocking statutes�? contained in foreign law. In particular, treating the EU Data Privacy regime with skepticism will help to prevent the creation of perverse incentives for companies to store their data abroad that hope to avoid legitimate discovery production requests under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by raising the transaction costs for such behavior.
针对外国公司的美国电子证据开示法的执行:美国法院是否应该对欧盟数据保护指令施加影响?
尽管美国最高法院在1958年首次考虑了美国证据披露规则与外国不披露法之间的冲突,但关于如何对外国注册公司执行美国法律的明确标准尚未出现。2006年《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》关于电子证据开示(“电子证据开示”)程序的修正案的结果是,“越来越多拥有全球业务的公司发现自己陷入了电子证据开示的困境,这需要从全球的角度对问题和法律有更深入的了解。”因为“当你的母公司位于海外,或者总部位于美国的公司在海外设有子公司时,驾驭和管理电子发现是一项挑战。”鉴于2006年的修订,以及关于2006年修订的影响缺乏判例法,本文着眼于执法技巧是否适用于“纸”?电子证据开示应适用于电子证据开示,以及电子证据开示的性质是否有任何特定的东西需要改变法律的适用。具体来说,本文讨论了欧洲数据隐私制度如何影响电子证据发现强制执行技术的应用。这篇论文表明,美国法院对欧洲数据隐私制度给予重大尊重是不明智的。相反,应该对欧洲的数据隐私制度持怀疑态度,就像美国法院看待“封锁法规”一样。包含在外国法律中的特别是,以怀疑的态度对待欧盟数据隐私制度,将有助于防止企业将数据存储在国外,希望通过提高此类行为的交易成本,避免根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》(Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)提出的合法取证要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信