To Understand US v. Microsoft, Consider 'Acme v. Shamrock'
The upcoming Supreme Court case could recalibrate the balance between discovery and comity that informs discovery disputes in a variety of international civil litigation.
February 22, 2018 at 12:24 PM
6 minute read
The Feb. 27 Supreme Court argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp. raises profound questions about issues of executive power, corporate governance, technology, judicial power and international affairs. At stake for the government is the scope of its investigative authority to obtain information located in a foreign country, irrespective of that country's laws. At stake for Microsoft is its ability to organize its international corporate affairs and the predictability of the laws that will govern those affairs.
While certainly profound, these issues are hardly new. Long before the advent of the digital age and the emergence of modern supernational bodies like the European Union, with its robust Data Protection Directive, courts debated whether to order the production of documents located in another country and worked to resolve clashes between the law of the country seeking information and the law of the country where it is sought. For instance, in 1947 the Southern District of New York subpoenaed the production of documents located in Canada from a Canadian paper company because the company was doing business in New York. Afterward, Quebec passed legislation to prohibit the removal of corporate records in response to a subpoena from a foreign jurisdiction. Close attention to such historical guideposts can foreshadow Microsoft's most significant implications, not just for government investigators and lawyers for multinational corporations, but also for lawyers involved in garden-variety commercial litigation that simply happen to involve documents located abroad.
To understand what is familiar and what is exceptional, in the Microsoft case, it is helpful to strip out some of the nuance and examine how issues of this sort would be resolved in a simple commercial case between two entities. Suppose that Acme, a Georgia-based corporation, sued Shamrock, an Ireland-based corporation, in federal court in Georgia. Suppose further that jurisdiction is not at issue and, during discovery, Acme propounds document requests on Shamrock requiring the production of documents located in Ireland. What now?
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 2Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 3Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
- 4'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 5NY Judge Resigns Amid Investigation of Alleged Unwelcome Sexual Advances, Judgments for Friends
Who Got The Work
Charles A. Weiss of Holland & Knight has entered an appearance for Rafael Badalov in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed July 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Lee Law on behalf of Otter Products LLC, accuses the defendant of selling counterfeit phone cases and accessories bearing the plaintiff's 'OtterBox' trademark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nina R. Morrison, is 1:24-cv-05214, Otter Products, LLC v. Badalov et al.
Who Got The Work
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Benjamin Hershkowitz, Richard W. Mark and Casey J. McCracken and R. Scott Johnson, Thomas M. Patton and Cara S. Donels have entered appearances for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. and MidAmerican Energy Co., respectively, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 17 in Iowa Southern District Court by Nyemaster Goode PC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., asserts six patents related to sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephen H. Locher, is 4:24-cv-00243, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.
Who Got The Work
Michael J. Hickey and Michael L. Jente of Lewis Rice LLC have stepped in to represent Tidal Wave Management in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 18 in Missouri Western District Court by Husch Blackwell on behalf of Waterway Gas & Wash Co., accuses the defendant of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Clean Car Club' mark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., is 4:24-cv-00471, Waterway Gas & Wash Company v. Tidal Wave Management LLC.
Who Got The Work
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz partners Lauren M. Kofke and William Savitt have stepped in to represent CVS Health and and its top officials in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Chaya Sara Kaufmann, accuses the defendants of failing to disclose that they used misleading forecasts to set premium plans which overstated the profitability of the company's health care benefits segment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06595, Kaufmann v. Lynch et al.
Who Got The Work
Robert L. Wallan from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman has entered an appearance for Findlay Management Group in a pending complaint for declaratory judgment. The complaint, filed on Aug. 8 in Nevada District Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Skarzynski Marick & Black on behalf of Houston Casualty Co., seeks to declare that no insurance policy exists between Houston Casualty and Findlay due to there not being an adequate form of delivery and claims that if delivery was substantiated it is rescinded based on material omissions and misrepresentations. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, is 2:24-cv-01459, Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250