August 11, 2020
Handling eDiscovery on matters that require compliance with the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) can be a challenge. For those who have yet to experience working under ITAR, it comes into play when one or more parties (or a non-party) to a litigation is a US Government contractor, particularly in the national security or military/defense industry, and is responsible for the licensing, export or import of materials and services governed by the Arms Export Control Act. Law firms and discovery service providers who wish to take on ITAR matters must fulfill the regulatory demands limiting who can access this potentially sensitive information. One key component is ensuring that the companies working on the matter are incorporated to do business in the United States, and relatedly, that all staff who will have access case documents meet the definition of “U.S. person” in ITAR.
August 4, 2020
The European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) invalidated on July 16, 2020, the EU-US “Privacy Shield,” the formal framework the European Union and the United States negotiated in 2016 for handling cross-border transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S. Rumors of the Privacy Shield’s demise, which had been predicted for years, were finally borne out when the CJEU held in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland (Schrems II) that the Privacy Shield program failed to provide adequate judicial redress to European data subjects in the face of the overly broad nature of U.S. government surveillance programs.
July 29, 2020
Driven, Inc. today announced it has become a member of the elite Brainspace Global Partner Program as part of their international services expansion strategy. Membership in Brainspace’s Global Partner Program enables Driven, Inc. to expand customer use cases and strengthen corporate relationships
July 20, 2020
Discovery complexities have taken on a whole new meaning during the COVID-19 crisis. It seems that every aspect of eDiscovery is now virtual, eliminating in many instances the human touch that is so often helpful for obtaining crucial evidence from data custodians to support claims or defenses.
July 14, 2020
Discovery is not an all-you-can-consume buffet. Yet the temptation to demand endless refills of document productions can be irresistible for some requesting parties. This is particularly true in asymmetrical litigation in U.S. federal court where a responding party is generally responsible to pay their own costs of discovery. This was the case for Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, where the court ordered plaintiff Larry Lawson—the former CEO of defendant Spirit AeroSystems—to pick up a $600,000 tab for a TAR 2.0 review conducted by Spirit at Lawson’s demand.