In Sowa v. Mercedes-Benz Grp. AG, No. 1:23-CV-636-SEG (N.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2025), Georgia District Judge Sarah E. Geraghty denied Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG’s motion for the entry of Defendants’ ESI protocol, rejecting their efforts to redact foreign personal data and exempt certain custodians from identification. Instead, she approved the plaintiffs’ proposed order for document and ESI discovery.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case involving claims that defendant concealed a defect causing rear subframes and related components to prematurely rust and fail, Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG (“MBG”) filed a motion seeking entry of its proposed ESI protocol. While both sides submitted substantially similar draft protocols, MBG’s proposal contained three contested provisions: a definition of “foreign personal data,” permission to redact such data and “objectively irrelevant” information from produced documents, and an exemption from identifying custodians where foreign privacy laws allegedly applied. In practical effect, MBG sought preemptive authority to redact names and contact information of European Union employees and to remove content it deemed irrelevant before producing documents.

MBG argued that EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) restrictions prevented it from producing unredacted names and contact information of EU employees unless plaintiffs first demonstrated that such information was “necessary” to their claims, proposing a so-called “layered approach” to production. Judge Geraghty squarely rejected this interpretation. She held that “the plain text of the GDPR does not support the ‘strict and narrow’ interpretation of ‘necessary’ advanced by MBG’s expert report,” observing that the GDPR does not define “necessary” in the manner MBG suggested. Judge Geraghty further noted that MBG cited no persuasive authority beyond its own expert opinion showing that European tribunals or regulators had adopted MBG’s view.

Importantly, Judge Geraghty found MBG’s approach inconsistent with established U.S. discovery principles because it would improperly shift the burden to plaintiffs. As she explained, MBG’s proposal “would likely open the door to additional litigation, time, and expense,” forcing plaintiffs to review redacted materials and then justify why obscured information should be disclosed. Judge Geraghty emphasized that under U.S. law, “the party resisting discovery must provide the Court with information of sufficient particularity and specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the discovery sought is indeed prohibited by foreign law,” a burden MBG failed to meet.

Judge Geraghty also rejected MBG’s argument that GDPR mandates such restrictions as a matter of international comity. Even assuming a conflict between GDPR and the Federal Rules (which she did not find), Judge Geraghty conducted a comity analysis under Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale. Applying the five-factor balancing test, Judge Geraghty concluded that four of the five factors weighed against MBG’s proposed protocol. She underscored that the information at issue consisted largely of “the names, positions, titles, and professional contact information of relevant current or former employees,” which she described as “the production of unredacted documents commonly produced in U.S. litigation.”

Regarding the concerns of balancing national interests, Judge Geraghty found that while the EU has a general interest in protecting personal data, MBG failed to show that the EU has an interest in barring disclosure of basic business contact information in U.S. litigation subject to a protective order. By contrast, Judge Geraghty stressed that “the United States undoubtedly has a substantial interest in fully and fairly adjudicating matters before its courts, which is only possible with complete discovery.” Allowing MBG’s preemptive redactions would “undermine the interests advanced by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s routine discovery process.”

Judge Geraghty then turned to MBG’s request to redact “objectively irrelevant” information. Here again, she sided with plaintiffs, noting that “relevance-based redactions are heavily disfavored.” Citing persuasive authority from multiple jurisdictions, Judge Geraghty explained that unilateral relevance redactions create practical problems, obscure context, and often generate more disputes rather than fewer. As she stated, “a party should not take it upon him, her or itself to decide unilaterally what context is necessary for the non-redacted part disclosed.” Judge Geraghty was particularly concerned that MBG sought blanket authority to redact unspecified information from unspecified documents, without any concrete discovery request before the Court.

Judge Geraghty also rejected MBG’s contention that such redactions were necessary to protect sensitive commercial information. It pointed out that the parties had already entered into a stipulated protective order, including an “attorneys’ eyes only” designation, and that MBG “has not shown that the protective order … is insufficient to protect its interests.” On the record before it, Judge Geraghty found “no reason to permit an approach in which MBG is preemptively authorized to redact unspecified information from unspecified documents it discloses in discovery.”

Finally, Judge Geraghty addressed plaintiffs’ request (which was embedded in their opposition brief) to compel MBG to disclose the names and contact information of all custodians in its initial disclosures. Judge Geraghty denied this request as procedurally improper and substantively unsupported, explaining that Rule 26(a) requires disclosure only of witnesses and documents a party “may use to support its claims or defenses.”

As a result, Judge Geraghty ruled: “The Court DENIES Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG’s motion for the entry of Defendants’ ESI protocol…The Court APPROVES Plaintiffs’ proposed order for discovery of documents and electronically stored information.”

So, what do you think? Do you agree that the entry of Defendants’ ESI protocol should have been denied? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.