The GDPR Blockade
A U.S. plaintiff sues a German software vendor in federal court in New York over a failed integration project. You represent the plaintiff. You serve a Rule 34 request for documents held by the vendor's Frankfurt-based engineering team, including internal Slack messages and personnel files for two engineers who left. The vendor objects, citing GDPR and German data protection law, and produces only U.S.-held documents. The engineers' Slack messages are central - they discussed the integration failure in real time. The vendor is a party, not a third party, and has a U.S. subsidiary but the data sits with the German parent. The judge is unfamiliar with the Hague Convention and has asked both sides for briefing.
1. Does the Hague Evidence Convention apply here, and how should you frame the argument?
Read the worked answer
The Hague Evidence Convention governs transnational evidence-gathering from a foreign non-party or where the forum requires it. Here the vendor is a party subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and the data is within its control. Under Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court, the Hague Convention is not exclusive - a U.S. court may order a party to produce documents in its control without resorting to the Convention. That is your primary argument.
Frame it as: (1) the vendor is a party with control over the data, (2) the Convention is optional, not mandatory, (3) the court retains discretion to order production. Anticipate the vendor's comity argument (the Aérospatiale balancing factors: importance of the documents, specificity of the request, whether the information originated in the U.S., alternative means, and the sovereign interests at stake). The documents originate with a U.S.-based project, which strengthens your position.
2. The vendor says GDPR prohibits transferring the Slack messages. How do you respond, and what mechanism could resolve the conflict?
Read the worked answer
GDPR does not prohibit litigation discovery - it regulates processing and transfer. There are lawful transfer mechanisms: Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), and the derogation for legal claims under Article 49(1)(e) (processing necessary for the establishment, exercise, or defense of legal claims). A U.S. litigation hold and protective order can satisfy the 'necessary' and 'proportionate' requirements.
Practical path: propose a protective order limiting use to this litigation, minimizing personal data (redact the two departed engineers' personnel files unless directly relevant), and using SCCs or the legal-claims derogation for the Slack transfer. Offer to let the vendor produce the Slack messages with PII minimized. This gives the vendor a compliance story and gives you the evidence. If the vendor still refuses, ask the court to order production and note that the Aérospatiale balancing favors the U.S. forum because the vendor is a party and the data concerns a U.S. project.
3. The judge asks whether the two departed engineers' personnel files are discoverable. What is your position?
Read the worked answer
Narrow it. Personnel files are personal data under GDPR and carry heightened protection in Germany. Argue relevance only to the extent the engineers' conduct or competence is at issue in the integration failure - e.g., performance reviews tied to the integration, or records of their departure timing. Do not seek the full personnel file.
Propose a targeted request: documents concerning the two engineers' work on the integration and the circumstances of their departure, with compensation, health, and family data redacted. This is proportionate under both FRCP 26(b)(1) and GDPR's minimization principle (Art. 5(1)(c)). A court is far more likely to compel a narrowly tailored request than a wholesale personnel-file demand, and it strengthens your credibility on the Slack request.