1.0Proskauer on Privacyhttps://privacylaw.proskauer.comNolan Goldberghttps://privacylaw.proskauer.com/author/ngoldberg/Possible Consequences to a Third Party for Violating a Foreign Blocking Statute Outweighed by Plaintiff's Need for Banking Records to Enforce a Judgment | Proskauer on Privacyrich600338<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="qPz9AwxIiO"><a href="https://privacylaw.proskauer.com/2010/04/articles/miscellaneous/possible-consequences-to-a-third-party-for-violating-a-foreign-blocking-statute-outweighed-by-plaintiffs-need-for-banking-records-to-enforce-a-judgment/">Possible Consequences to a Third Party for Violating a Foreign Blocking Statute Outweighed by Plaintiff’s Need for Banking Records to Enforce a Judgment</a></blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://privacylaw.proskauer.com/2010/04/articles/miscellaneous/possible-consequences-to-a-third-party-for-violating-a-foreign-blocking-statute-outweighed-by-plaintiffs-need-for-banking-records-to-enforce-a-judgment/embed/#?secret=qPz9AwxIiO" width="600" height="338" title="“Possible Consequences to a Third Party for Violating a Foreign Blocking Statute Outweighed by Plaintiff’s Need for Banking Records to Enforce a Judgment” — Proskauer on Privacy" data-secret="qPz9AwxIiO" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">
/* <![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]> */
</script>
On March 8, 2010 the SDNY issued the latest opinion addressing the conflict between U.S. discovery laws and foreign blocking statutes. In Gucci Amer., Inc. v. Curveal Fashion, the court compelled a third-party to produce documents located at its subsidiary despite claims that such production was illegal under the Malaysian law. This opinion illustrates the no-win situation that foreign corporations continue to be placed in by the tension between U.S. courts and foreign law, and underscores the importance of raising foreign-law based discovery objections as early and in as detailed a manner as possible in order to maximize the chances of successfully navigating this conflict.https://proskaueronprivacy.proskauerroseblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2023/05/ProskauerPrivacyOG.jpg1200630