The Corporate Reality ofCross-Border Disputes in the Global Business Market <br />Legal Tech New York<br />February 1, 201...
Panel Introductions<br />Brendan M. Schulman, Esq. <br />E-Discovery Counsel, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP<br />Dav...
Agenda<br />Legal Background – US/Non-US Differentiators<br />Practical Considerations and Process Recommendations<br />Or...
Legal Background & US/Non-US Differentiators<br />
American-Style Discovery<br />  F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1)<br />“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter th...
American-Style Discovery<br /> F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1)<br />Discovery requests need only be “reasonably calculated to lead to th...
American-Style Discovery<br />Discovery rules enable the parties "to obtain the fullest possible knowledgeof the issues an...
American-Style Discovery<br />
Conflict with Foreign Framework<br />“[T]he transfer to a third country of personal data which are undergoing processing o...
Conflict with Foreign Framework<br />“There is a tension between the disclosure obligations under US litigation or regulat...
Hague Convention<br /> Hague Convention Article 23<br />“A Contracting State may at the time of signature, ratification or...
Aerospatiale case<br />Aerospatiale case<br />Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. US District Court for the Sou...
Aerospatiale case - Application<br />Aerospatiale case - Application<br />“Many courts are simply discarding the [Hague Co...
Blocking Statutes<br /> French blocking statute:<br />Criminal penalties for “communicating ... to foreign public authorit...
Blocking Statutes<br />U.S. Courts generally do not heed<br /> Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 116 F.R.D. 51...
Getting into trouble<br />Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais S.A., 242 F.R.D. 199, 221 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)<br /> French Corporation is...
Getting into trouble<br />In Re Advocat “Christopher X” (Supreme Court) Criminal Section, Appeal No. 07-83228 (January 16,...
Getting into trouble<br />Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A, 2005 WL 1026461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).<br ...
eDiscovery Process - Practical Considerations<br />
Safety Concerns/Investigative Services<br /><ul><li>Assessing travel and safety concerns for your legal team and third par...
Assessing the need for investigative services to evaluate safety concerns and information and fact gathering.
Cultural sensitivity and understanding </li></li></ul><li>Custodial Interviews, Collection and Chain of Custody <br /><ul>...
Consulting with client on collections.  When do you use client resources versus a third party collections vendor?
Understanding and addressing potential DPA issues and assessing the need for Safe Harbor.
Preparing for and conducting document custodial interviews, staffing needs and key questions for custodians.
Are forensic accounting services required and factors to consider for collection?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

LegalTech Cross Border Disputes

724 views

Published on

LegalTech Cross Border Disputes

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
724
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
74
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LegalTech Cross Border Disputes

  1. 1. The Corporate Reality ofCross-Border Disputes in the Global Business Market <br />Legal Tech New York<br />February 1, 2011<br />
  2. 2. Panel Introductions<br />Brendan M. Schulman, Esq. <br />E-Discovery Counsel, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP<br />David Bryant Isbell<br />Senior Litigation Specialist, Baker & McKenzie LLP<br />Cynthia B. Bateman<br />Director, Forensic Technology Services, KPMG LLP<br />Heidi Maher, Esq.<br />Principal - Compliance & eDiscovery Practice, EMC Corporation<br />
  3. 3. Agenda<br />Legal Background – US/Non-US Differentiators<br />Practical Considerations and Process Recommendations<br />Organizational Policy and Compliance<br />
  4. 4. Legal Background & US/Non-US Differentiators<br />
  5. 5. American-Style Discovery<br /> F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1)<br />“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense -- including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity of persons who know of any discoverable matter”<br />
  6. 6. American-Style Discovery<br /> F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1)<br />Discovery requests need only be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”<br />
  7. 7. American-Style Discovery<br />Discovery rules enable the parties "to obtain the fullest possible knowledgeof the issues and facts before trial.“Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947) <br />"Exceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for the truth."<br />U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974) <br />
  8. 8. American-Style Discovery<br />
  9. 9. Conflict with Foreign Framework<br />“[T]he transfer to a third country of personal data which are undergoing processing or are intended for processing after transfer may take place only if . . . the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection”<br />EU Data Protection Directive<br />Article 25<br />
  10. 10. Conflict with Foreign Framework<br />“There is a tension between the disclosure obligations under US litigation or regulatory rules and the application of the data protection requirements of the EU. . . . an obligation imposed by a foreign statute or regulation may not qualify as a legal obligation by virtue of which data processing in the EU would be made legitimate.”<br /> E.U. Article 29 Working Party Report 158 <br />
  11. 11. Hague Convention<br /> Hague Convention Article 23<br />“A Contracting State may at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that it will not execute Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in Common Law countries.” <br />
  12. 12. Aerospatiale case<br />Aerospatiale case<br />Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987)<br /> Hague Convention is not exclusive means for US litigants to obtain evidence abroad<br /> District Court possesses jurisdiction "to order a foreign national party before it to produce evidence physically located within a signatory nation"<br /> Hague Convention is not the first resort because it is "unduly time consuming and expensive, as well as less certain to produce needed evidence than direct use of the Federal Rules." <br />
  13. 13. Aerospatiale case - Application<br />Aerospatiale case - Application<br />“Many courts are simply discarding the [Hague Convention] as an unnecessary hassle” and do not “exercise the ‘special vigilance’ to protect foreign litigants’ that the Supreme Court anticipated.”<br />In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, 358 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2004)<br />
  14. 14. Blocking Statutes<br /> French blocking statute:<br />Criminal penalties for “communicating ... to foreign public authorities, economic, commercial, industrial, financial, or technical documents or information, the communication of which [would] infringe upon the sovereignty, security or essential economic interests of France or upon the public order.” <br />
  15. 15. Blocking Statutes<br />U.S. Courts generally do not heed<br /> Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 116 F.R.D. 517 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)<br /> In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Secs. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 5571 (RJH), 2006 WL 3378115 (S.D.N.Y. 2006);<br />
  16. 16. Getting into trouble<br />Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais S.A., 242 F.R.D. 199, 221 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)<br /> French Corporation is ordered to produce documents located in France.<br />
  17. 17. Getting into trouble<br />In Re Advocat “Christopher X” (Supreme Court) Criminal Section, Appeal No. 07-83228 (January 16, 2008)<br /><ul><li> U.S. Counsel request to French local counsel</li></ul> French lawyer convicted and fined € 10,000<br />
  18. 18. Getting into trouble<br />Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A, 2005 WL 1026461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).<br /> Adverse-inference instruction.<br />
  19. 19. eDiscovery Process - Practical Considerations<br />
  20. 20. Safety Concerns/Investigative Services<br /><ul><li>Assessing travel and safety concerns for your legal team and third party vendors
  21. 21. Assessing the need for investigative services to evaluate safety concerns and information and fact gathering.
  22. 22. Cultural sensitivity and understanding </li></li></ul><li>Custodial Interviews, Collection and Chain of Custody <br /><ul><li>Pre-Collection IT meeting and assessment of client infrastructure.
  23. 23. Consulting with client on collections. When do you use client resources versus a third party collections vendor?
  24. 24. Understanding and addressing potential DPA issues and assessing the need for Safe Harbor.
  25. 25. Preparing for and conducting document custodial interviews, staffing needs and key questions for custodians.
  26. 26. Are forensic accounting services required and factors to consider for collection?
  27. 27. Importance of maintaining chain of custody and documentation including collection logs
  28. 28. Regular process auditing and QC </li></li></ul><li>Data Processing and E-Discovery Tools <br /><ul><li>Factors to consider post collection for data processing and hosting.
  29. 29. Selection of an e-Discovery Platform
  30. 30. Safe Harbor Certification
  31. 31. Foreign language review and Unicode compliance
  32. 32. Data encryption concerns
  33. 33. Global De-Duplication vs Custodial De-De-Duplication
  34. 34. Time zone processing
  35. 35. Data culling and search terms. Factors to consider when developing search terms, including foreign language. </li></li></ul><li>Document Review, Production, Cost Control <br /><ul><li>On-shoring vs Off-shoring, what are my best options for review?
  36. 36. Considering DPA concerns when staffing a document review team.
  37. 37. Putting controls around your document review and QC.
  38. 38. Harnessing Technology – when and how to implement advanced analytical tools in the document review process
  39. 39. Production Concerns and Organization – Producing to multiple regulatory agencies.
  40. 40. Concerns over cost control and coping with the high cost of e-discovery and review.
  41. 41. Production costs </li></li></ul><li>Organizational Considerations<br />
  42. 42. Organizational Considerations<br />Internal Organizational Considerations<br /><ul><li>Collaboration Among Legal, Information Technology, Information Security, RIM, and Overall Corporate Compliance Functions
  43. 43. Personal Data Policies and Procedures
  44. 44. Records Management and Information Governance
  45. 45. Third-Party Relationships
  46. 46. Compliance Audits</li></li></ul><li>Questions?<br />

×