In Sowa v. Mercedes-Benz Group AG, 2025 WL 3143639 (N.D. Ga. 2025) United States District Judge Sarah E. Geraghty addressed disputes concerning cross-border discovery obligations and the scope of defendants’ ESI production in a consumer class action. The litigation involves claims related to alleged defects and misrepresentations concerning Mercedes-Benz vehicles and implicates data maintained by foreign corporate affiliates.
Plaintiff Sowa moved to compel additional discovery, arguing that Mercedes-Benz failed to conduct adequate ESI searches, improperly limited custodians and data sources, and erroneously relied on proportionality arguments and foreign data-privacy concerns to restrict production. Defendant Mercedes Benz contended that they had produced substantial discovery, that additional searches would be unduly burdensome, and that foreign data protection laws constrained further collection and production.
Judge Geraghty found that defendants’ discovery efforts were insufficient and lacked transparency, particularly with respect to ESI maintained by foreign affiliates. The court emphasized that proportionality and data-privacy concerns do not excuse a party from identifying custodians, explaining search methodologies, or demonstrating concrete burdens. The court ordered defendants to expand their ESI searches, provide detailed disclosures regarding custodians and data sources, and meet and confer in good faith regarding phased discovery and privacy-compliant production mechanisms.
The court further rejected defendants’ generalized reliance on foreign privacy laws absent specific evidence of legal prohibitions or undue hardship. The court rejected Mercedes-Benz’s attempt to impose a GDPR-driven, “layered” ESI protocol that would allow blanket redaction of EU employee names and contact information and would shift the burden to plaintiffs to justify disclosure. The court emphasized that foreign data-privacy statutes (including the GDPR) do not deprive U.S. courts of the authority to order discovery from parties subject to their jurisdiction. A party resisting discovery based on foreign law must show that a specific foreign law actually prohibits the particular production at issue
The ruling reinforces that multinational litigants must proactively address cross-border ESI challenges, engage in cooperative discovery practices, and provide meaningful transparency into search and collection efforts. Courts continue to expect defensible, well-documented discovery processes even where international data considerations are involved
Reach out to Caitlin Oyler, Counsel at CODISCOVR. Caitlin has over a decade of experience providing high-level advice to clients regarding all phases of the eDiscovery life cycle and managing high-profile document collections, reviews, and productions.
