Cross-border investigations are rarely straightforward. Legal obligations vary by country, and cultural expectations can shape both access and cooperation. By the time counsel gets involved, the investigation is already underway, unfolding across multiple jurisdictions with competing rules.

Legal teams must reconcile broad US discovery obligations with restrictive data privacy compliance laws like the GDPR, China’s PIPL, and other local regulations that limit what can be reviewed, transferred, or produced. Missteps—whether technical, procedural, or cultural—can undermine the investigation or create new liability. Increasingly, the challenge is no longer purely legal. It’s operational and technical, requiring teams to align data governance, investigative workflows, and legal strategy from the outset.

This article draws from real-world experience to examine the practical challenges of cross-border investigations and litigation, from early data strategy to navigating local sensitivities and building a defensible process that spans jurisdictions.

Navigating Conflicting Legal Obligations

Few challenges in cross-border investigations are as persistent or complex as the tension between GDPR and US discovery obligations, where expansive US production requirements clash with restrictive international privacy laws.

Before data collection begins, teams must determine where the data resides, which laws govern it, and whether global data transfers are permissible. These assessments are critical for both internal investigations and litigation, where data admissibility and procedural compliance may come under judicial scrutiny. A defensible strategy increasingly depends on technology-enabled planning that aligns legal requirements, data governance, and investigative objectives from the outset.

Early engagement with local counsel helps clarify privacy rules and, in many jurisdictions, potential criminal liability risks. For instance, in Latin America, an internal investigation into financial misconduct may require both litigation counsel and a criminal specialist to avoid violating local rules.

Privilege and Privacy Concerns

Privilege protection is another early issue that requires close attention. Communications with in-house counsel may be protected under US law but unprotected or even discoverable in jurisdictions like France or China.

Practical Safeguards and Documentation

Fortunately, practical solutions exist. AI-assisted redaction or pseudonymization tools can remove personal identifiers before documents are reviewed or shared. A US company responding to a DOJ subpoena, for example, might use AI tools to redact employee birthdates and national ID numbers from emails and spreadsheets originating from its German subsidiary.

Audit trails are equally important to defensibility. Documenting how and where data was reviewed—and what steps were taken to comply with local privacy laws—can demonstrate due diligence and good faith if regulators later raise concerns.

Adaptability is essential. Overly rigid data collection plans risk privacy violations or incomplete productions. Defensibility depends on strategic alignment and flexibility as laws and technologies evolve.

Cultural and Operational Realities in Global Investigations

In cross-border investigations, legal issues are only part of the story. Cultural dynamics, institutional hierarchies, and local norms often play key roles in how investigations unfold. Technology often plays a quiet but critical role here, enabling remote access, controlled workflows, and auditability that allow global teams to collaborate without disrupting local norms or violating employment or privacy laws.

Employment Considerations

Employment law considerations are equally critical in cross-border investigations. Mishandling local procedures can trigger labor claims, violate due process, or render investigative findings inadmissible. In parts of Latin America, for example, investigators may need to consult with union leaders before interviewing employees—and in some cases, allow union representatives to be present during the interview. This can complicate confidentiality, witness credibility, and timing. Written consent is often required before accessing work-issued devices, especially when personal communication apps like WhatsApp are involved.

Labor protections and union oversight vary widely by jurisdiction, and even well-intentioned missteps can lead to delays or legal challenges. Teams must work closely with local HR and legal advisors to ensure compliance with local employment laws and expectations.

Authority and Hierarchy

Institutional hierarchy also affects access and cooperation. In some Chinese companies, for instance, a general counsel may lack authority to compel data production, while an IT lead or mid-level engineer controls access. Identifying and building trust with the right stakeholders on the ground is often essential to moving an investigation forward.

H3 Confidentiality and Perception

Cultural expectations around confidentiality can also influence cooperation. In certain Middle Eastern or European contexts, investigators may be viewed with suspicion and perceived less as neutral fact-finders and more as adversaries. Early alignment with in-country compliance or HR teams, paired with careful tone-setting, can help avoid unnecessary resistance.

Language and Nuance

Language adds another layer. Even when documents are translated, subtleties in phrasing and cultural nuance can affect interpretation. Misunderstanding tone or context can distort both document review and interview findings. At scale, multilingual data sets also increase the risk of inconsistent interpretation, making structured review workflows and language-aware tools essential to defensible analysis.

Discovery Tools and Practical Constraints

Global discovery often exposes the gap between legal authority and practical feasibility. Courts may permit discovery under certain statutes, but enforcement across borders can be far more complex.

Legal Limitations

Section 1782 discovery allows litigants in foreign proceedings to request discovery from individuals or entities in the United States. But even when courts grant these orders, enforcement can prove difficult in practice. A judge may order a witness from Hong Kong to testify in New York—only for the witness to face months-long exit visa delays, rendering the order meaningless before trial begins.

Similarly, even seemingly routine production requests may be blocked by state-secrecy laws abroad. In one case, a municipal IT contract was declared a national security matter. Despite multiple motions to compel and the risk of contempt fines, the company refused to produce the document, citing potential criminal penalties.

These limitations demand creativity, particularly in cross-border litigation, where courts may expect production that local laws restrict. Under Rule 30(b)(2), a witness in Europe might show an unredacted document during a deposition without ever transmitting the file across borders. Rule 34 may allow parties to remotely test software on a foreign server, rather than transferring sensitive source code to the United States.

Technical Innovations

Discovery vendors now offer platforms that enable secure, in-region document review. These tools give US-based teams controlled access to foreign data while meeting local data-residency and privacy requirements—avoiding the need for costly travel or regulator engagement. In cross-border disputes, these solutions can help litigants satisfy discovery obligations without breaching foreign privacy laws or triggering enforcement risk.

Advances in discovery technology have also helped teams navigate these constraints. Tools such as Excel spreadsheets and CSV exports that support redaction in complex file types now allow reviewers to protect personal or sensitive data embedded in large datasets. Just a few years ago, redacting structured data like this was technically difficult, if not impossible, making compliance with privacy laws far more challenging.

Still, it’s critical to approach these tools with a clear understanding of what local laws permit. Just because a method is technically feasible doesn’t mean it’s legally advisable.

Building a Defensible and Coordinated Framework

Cross-border investigations are most effective when governance, oversight, and documentation are tightly aligned from the outset.

Establishing a central coordination hub—typically managed by outside counsel—helps ensure consistent privilege treatment, timeline management, and communication with regulators. This “nerve center” structure allows teams to control the narrative, coordinate responses across jurisdictions, and reduce the risk of conflicting accounts.

Even small inconsistencies between regulatory submissions can raise suspicion. A discrepancy between findings presented to the DOJ and an EU data authority, even if due to translation or timing, may appear strategic or deceptive. Documenting what was shared, when, and under what rationale can insulate companies from bad-faith accusations.

Auditable records should go beyond evidence, supporting both litigation readiness and regulatory compliance. Teams should track how privilege calls were made, how access rights were assigned, and where data was transferred. In some cases, regulators may request these records to confirm compliance.

Investigations involving national security or export-controlled data are even more complex. Reviewers may need specific government clearances. Some files may be restricted to review within the host country or even within designated secure environments. In those cases, a phased approach—initial review by cleared personnel, followed by broader team access after redaction or sanitization—can help maintain data compliance while allowing the investigation to progress.

The Value of Early, Local, and Trusted Partnerships

Managing cross-border investigations often stretches the limits of internal resources. Teams that handle them well draw on a mix of legal skill, cultural understanding, and technical capability.

Regional counsel are indispensable in navigating local rules, identifying blocking statutes, notification requirements, employment restrictions, and privilege risks. They also bridge cultural divides, helping investigators approach people and institutions with the right level of respect and awareness.

Technology partners play a parallel role. From implementing legal holds without tipping off employees to staging in-country reviews to building audit trails that meet regulatory expectations, trusted vendors help investigators move quickly and defensibly.

In one investigation involving a defense company, data review protocols had to account for both export control laws and GDPR restrictions. Cleared personnel conducted initial screenings, privacy filters were applied, and only then could broader legal teams begin analysis. Without the right infrastructure, such a review would have been unmanageable.

True success comes from balancing global oversight with local execution. Organizations that plan early, coordinate across functions, and work with experienced partners are better positioned to respond credibly and decisively, wherever the data lives.

Start Building a Defensible Framework Today

Cross-border investigations leave little room for error, and even less time to prepare. The right strategy begins with early alignment, local insight, and trusted support.

Whether you're facing a multijurisdictional matter or preparing for the next one, our experts can help you navigate the complexity. Let’s chat.