Comparing FRCP and GDPR in Global Network Investigations

This discussion board post analyzes the critical differences between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), focusing on their impact on data privacy, e-discovery, and global network investigations. The assignment addresses how GDPR conflicts with FRCP regarding the discovery, disclosure, transfer, and processing of personal data, emphasizing the stricter data privacy protections in the EU compared to the United States. It explores how the U.S.'s approach to private information clashes with GDPR's stringent regulations, particularly in the context of international investigations. The post also highlights the importance of understanding these differences for professionals involved in global business and legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for compliance with both U.S. and EU laws. The assignment underscores the challenges faced by investigators when conducting e-discovery across national boundaries and the legal restrictions imposed by the EU Data Privacy Directive. It examines the different views on data collection, retention, and transportation, which require U.S. investigators to be well-versed in both U.S. and EU regulations.

Running head: CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FRCP AND GDPR
Critical Differences between FRCP and GDPR
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s note

1CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FRCP AND GDPR
1. Ways of conflict of GDPR with FRCP
On the May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) would take into
effect and would replace the existing codes of regulations. This new GDPR is mainly designed
for providing the citizens with a better kind of control over the personal data of the citizen. The
GDPR also tends to harmonize the existing data protection laws based within the European
Union (EU) member states and the different rights on data protection based on all individuals.
With the impact of GDPR, the privacy of data would become the most important concern
for information governance professionals and e-discovery that would be present outside the
context of EU (GDPR & Electronic Discovery: What to Do Before, During and After Litigation,
2019). Various data handlers, data owners and data processors situated within the United States
have made a lot of stake within the changing landscape of international business. The different
data-protection authorities have gained a range of powers with the enforcement of GDPR within
the organisational set-up.
With the introduction of the act, the GDPR would expose different U.S set companies to
severe form of penalties with the absence of compliance based on the strict regulations of rules.
The GDPR has also recently revised the obligations of discovery that would impose sanctions for
the failure of the party in order to preserve electronic data of citizens.
The new set rule of the privacy requirements of GDPR might be able to push the US
litigants for making of early settlements rather than proceeding with the discovery of litigation.
This would result in high issue of fines within Europe or any other kind of ethical issues that are
in regards to the preservation of complete discovery present within the FRCP Rule present within

2CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FRCP AND GDPR
the U.S (Fenwick & Wrbka, 2018). The GDPR would also majorly cover the assurance of data
protection within the E.U and the data that would be created or stored within the U.S domain.
2. Conflict of private information of the U.S with Data Protection Language
The General data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is defined as a new European Union
regime of data protection and privacy. The GDPR is mainly designed for providing greater form
of protection to the various forms of personal data of various individuals who are located within
EU. The GDPR also helps in imposing a variety of new obligations based on processors and
controllers of critical data. The GDPR also discusses for imposing legal penalties on companies
who would fail to comply with the newly set obligations.
There are different U.S based companies who have already initiated the process of
bringing themselves under the act of compliance (Svantesson, 2016). The GDPR has a longer
reach in the market that it would encompass a larger subset of the U.S organizations. There are
various smaller organizations who would deal with a small amount of data originating from EU.
The U.S companies that are responsible for handling the personal data of individuals who
are located in the EU are approaching closer towards a new form of data security regime. This
new set regime would require an increased focus on the use of compliance even in such areas
that would not have much establishments within the EU. The areas of conflict for the private
information of U.S with the GDPR is based on the introduction of greater protections within the
personal data of the individuals located within the EU.
The GDPR would also impose new kind of obligations on various organizations who
would be involved within the processing of the personal data of EU. Although the different data-
driven companies that have a global footprint are aware of the GDPR, the U.S organizations

3CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FRCP AND GDPR
would also handle the small amounts of the personal data of the EU (Fuster, 2014). They might
be surprised to detect themselves subjected to the GDPR and thus would need certain steps to
bring themselves within compliance before the regulation would get into effect.
References
Fenwick, M., & Wrbka, S. (2018). International Business Law: Emerging Fields of Regulation.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Fuster, G. G. (2014). The emergence of personal data protection as a fundamental right of the
EU (Vol. 16). Springer Science & Business.
GDPR & Electronic Discovery: What to Do Before, During and After Litigation. (2019).
Retrieved from https://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2018/09/gdpr-and-
electronic-discovery
Svantesson, D. J. B. (2016). Private international law and the internet. Wolters Kluwer Law &
Business.