Cross-border discovery has become one of the most contentious issues in modern transnational litigation. As global business operations generate vast amounts of data stored across multiple jurisdictions, U.S. litigants increasingly seek documents located in countries with restrictive privacy and datasovereignty regimes. Nowhere is this tension more pronounced than in discovery disputes involving the United States and the People\u2019s Republic of China. U.S. courts operate under a historically expansive discovery system that presumes broad access to information and prioritizes the truth-seeking function of litigation. China, by contrast, has constructed a comprehensive regulatory architecture, including the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), the Data Security Law (DSL), the Cybersecurity Law, and a series of implementing measures, that strictly regulates data processing and cross-border transfers through purpose limitation, necessity, minimization, and risk-based assessments. These systems are often described as fundamentally incompatible: one rooted in openness and adversarial disclosure, the other grounded in sovereignty, control, and national security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Cross-border discovery has become one of the most contentious issues in modern transnational litigation. As global business operations generate vast amounts of data stored across multiple jurisdictions, U.S. litigants increasingly seek documents located in countries with restrictive privacy and datasovereignty regimes. Nowhere is this tension more pronounced than in discovery disputes involving the United States…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,14,468],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-2","category-current-issue","category-volume-58-issue-4"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/58"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4564"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4564\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4566,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4564\/revisions\/4566"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}