The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
E.D. Pa.: Expert to Study if French Blocking Statute Applies for ESI in NY Relativity Databases
December 25, 2019
Last Friday, in Behrens v. Arconic, Inc., No. 19-2664, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220209 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2019), an expert was appointed by the Court to study the impact of a French blocking statute that the Defendants rely on to limit discovery from one of its entities. The statute bars communications with a foreign court that would harm the economic or security interests of France. The case concerns cladding sold by a French subsidiary that was used in Grenfell Tower, a building in London where a catastrophic fire occurred.
The parties’ dispute turns on whether ESI collected by DLA Piper, the Defendants’ counsel in the UK and France, is located in New York because it is in Relativity databases hosted there.
The Court cited the Sedona Conference’s Working Group 6 standards on cross border discovery as an important authority guiding its decision. It noted the following principles established by the Sedona Conference:
1. U.S. courts should respect the data protection laws of foreign courts. 2. Where full compliance with both data protection laws and discovery obligations is impossible, a standard of good faith and reasonableness should be applied. 3. Preservation and discovery should be limited to data that is necessary for a party’s claims and defenses in order to avoid a conflict of laws.