The case of the day is Behrens v. Arconic, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2019). The case arose out of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017. The cladding on the building that allegedly exacerbated the fire was manufactured by AAP S.A.S., a French subsidiary of Arconic. In discovery, the plaintiff sought documents that, according to Arconic, were in the possession of AAP, and Arconic raised an issue under the French blocking statute.
Tagged: blocking statute, France
The case of the day is Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). It’s from early in 2019, but I missed it when it was issued. The case was a patent dispute. Finjan, a computer security company, sought the production of emails from Tim Warner, a British citizen living in the UK. The emails were important, Finjan said, because Warner, its previous sales director who now headed UK sales for the defnedant, had “intimate knowledge” of the patented technology and “could explain [it] inside out.” Zscaler argued that it could not produce the emails, because production would violate the GDPR. It claimed that Finjan’s proposed search terms were overbroad and would require the production of unnecessary personal data, which would have to be…
Tagged: Aerospatiale, blocking statute, GDPR
The case of the day is EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The judge had previously denied a motion by EFG, a Swiss bank, for a protective order that would have required AXA to seek discovery of information located in Switzerland via the Hague Evidence Convention. EFG sought reconsideration.