The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as state procedural rules, permit parties to a lawsuit to conduct discovery, in search of information and documents that may be relevant to the litigation. Parties can issue requests for documents, information (called interrogatories), and admissions of fact to other parties to the lawsuit; parties may use

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
Background. Company A retains Company Z in Country Q to process personal data (e.g., collect personal data from data subjects). Company

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
  • Background. Company A transmits personal data to its processor Company Z, and then instructs its processor to onward transfer the personal

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Controller A-1 (EEA) → Controller A-2 (Non-EEA)

Visual Description and Implications
  • Background. Company A-1 and Company A-2 are corporate affiliates that are under common ownership

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Controller A (EEA)  → Controller B (EEA) → Controller C (Non-EEA)

Visual Description and Implications
  • Background. Company A in the EEA transfers personal data to

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Controller A (EEA) → Controller B (EEA) → Processor Z (Non-EEA)

Visual Description and Implications
  • Background. Company A in the EEA transfers personal data to

Controller A (Non-EEA) → Processor Z (Non-EEA) → Sub-processor Y (EEA) → Controller A (Non-EEA) (same country)

Visual Description and Implications
  • Transfer 1: No mechanism needed.  Company A is not required under the GDPR to put safeguards in place to transfer information to a processor that is also located in Country Q.
  • Transfer 2: No

It depends on the purpose for which a transfer impact assessment (TIA) is created. It is unlikely that the attorney-client privilege would apply to a TIA that is created, and used, to satisfy the requirements of the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs).

The attorney-client privilege in the United States refers to a judicially recognized ability for

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”[1] and, as a result,

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
Transfers from a European Data Subject: Data Subject→Controller (US)→Processor (US)
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”1 and, as a result,