One of the most vexing problems for global companies and their lawyers is how to identify, collect, and use electronically stored information in e-discovery without ending up in jail or facing huge fines. The most obvious problem is that countries have very different laws about personal privacy, often developed in reaction to their unique histories—especially if that history included repressive regimes where personal information was used to identify and kill dissidents.

At the Georgetown Advanced E-Discovery Institute Friday panel, "First Do No Harm: Preserving and Admitting Foreign ESI," panelists offered analysis and advice on this challenging topic, which becomes more difficult by the day as the world becomes increasingly "smaller" with the explosion of inexpensive mobile devices and communication options.

The panelists brought a rich range of experience to the discussion. Shira Scheindlin, a U.S. District Court judge in the Southern District of New York, previously worked as a prosecutor, commercial lawyer, and as a special master. Kenneth Rashbaum, an attorney and principal at Rashbaum Associate, moderated the 75-minute program, held at The Ritz-Carlton Tysons Corner, in metropolitan Washington, D.C. He previously worked at Fios Inc.; Sedgwick, Detert, Moran and Arnold; and as a Kings County District Attorney. London-based Jonathan Armstrong is a partner at Duane Morris, and a host of the firm's TechLaw10 podcast series. He previously was a partner at Eversheds. Matthew Knouff is general counsel and e-discovery counsel at Complete Discovery Source. Attorney Stephanie Mendelsohn is director of corporate records and e-discovery at Genentech, and formerly was a partner at Reed Smith. Fernando Pinguelo, is a trial lawyer and chair of Norris McLaughlin & Marcus' Cyber Security & Data Protection Group, and serves as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University Law School, where he teaches an e-discovery course. ...

At the heart of cross-border e-discovery challenges is the reality that personal data is viewed differently from country to country, and "personal data has a value in Europe that is protected by law," explained Armstrong. While there are different litigation systems worldwide, the practice areas that currently generate e-discovery quandaries usually boil down to three: employment, data privacy, and data protection. Complicating matters even more, when it comes to privacy laws, there is "different enforcement, even within Europe," in addition to the "contrasting approaches" taken by Europe and the U.S. Fueling the challenge, he said, is the "increased militancy of defendants and subjects."

Culture and history are key to understanding these agendas, the panelists explained. "Data privacy laws change after revolutions," said Armstrong. "Europe is a quilt of different nations with different histories. Broadly, people feel strongly when they come from a country that has a history of repression." For example, France, he said, is particularly wary of privacy regarding political sentiment; and Switzerland is queasy about data export. Hungary fiercely protects medical records privacy, because in its past, dental records were used by the Kremlin to identify dissidents, track them down, and kill them. The U.K., however, hasn't experienced that level of repression, Armstrong noted, also observing that sensitivities change as generations change.

There is an increasingly resistance of data regulators to broad investigations, he noted, and a spike in whistleblowers who report improper use of data. In 1996, the European Union has created an "Article 29 Working Party," comprised of one member from each country, that provides advice and opinions on data privacy, Armstrong noted. "It is like a frat club for data regulators."

The biggest issue facing international litigants dealing with e-discovery, said Scheindlin, is defining the trigger when parties must start saving potentially relevant data. Specifically, when does the reasonable anticipation of litigation apply when it comes to the decision to initiate a legal hold. That issue is right in Scheindlin's wheelhouse—she wrote landmark opinions on this question that shaped the early development of e-discovery, including Zubulake v. UBS Warburg.

Said Scheindlin: "Preservation is not simple, even in the U.S. We don't have a statute on preservation; we have been talking about writing one, to be added to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but haven't." But she noted, there is guidance from existing case law— "preservation principals found in sanction cases, where people didn't do it right." But, she noted, "legal holds beyond U.S. borders [are] an alien concept."

Genentech's Mendelsohn offered some practical ways to address cross-border e-discovery. "First, and most important, start to sensitize your clients—both internal and external—about legal holds and what they mean. ...

Offered Mendelsohn: "Records management and retention and email policies help." Be sure employees understand legal holds, and understand their responsibilities, she said. Make sure employees know how long to keep documents, especially for sensitive information. "Leverage your in-house and in-country people and tools." Companies, she said, should consider in advance how you will process and cull data, depending on the risk and the volume.

A strong message resonated through several comments: lawyers should act swiftly. ... Scheindlin urged the audience to be proactive with the court. "It's your job to educate the judges," she said. "We on the judiciary are blissfully unaware of these problems. Many judge have no experience with foreign laws."

Litigators, Scheindlin suggested, should focus on the parties, rather than non-parties. Judges, she said, can make demands on parties. And if different rules and jurisdictions are at play, "it's your job to raise the issues" to the court. And "raise the issue quickly—at the Rule 16 conference," said Scheindlin, referring to pre-trial meetings required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "It's all about education and raising the issue early."

Scheindlin acknowledged that some countries' rules will not sit well with American litigators, especially privacy requirements that allow employees to review and remove personal data. "We don't like that," she said, citing as an example how a supervisor accused of harassment could expunge emails that would substantiate the allegation.

The panel wrapped up the discussion with a quick overview of foundational elements, including authenticity, reliability, hearsay exceptions, and the best evidence rule. Scheindlin offered a very pragmatic piece of advice: "Review the Federal Rules of Evidence before the hearings," she suggested, advising that even she does so before hearings to stay fresh on its nuances.

This article originally appeared in Law Technology News and is republished here with permission from law.com.

This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.

Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. The Duane Morris Institute provides training workshops for HR professionals, in-house counsel, benefits administrators and senior managers.