For instance, suppose you loaned me a valuable physical document of yours. I put it in a safe deposit box at a bank in the United States. You ask for the document back and I refuse. You could go to court and get a court order telling me to return the document to you.
Now supposed instead I had put that document in a safe deposit box in a bank in Mexico. You would still be able to get a US court order telling me to return the document to you. To avoid contempt of court, I'd have to go to Mexico and retrieve the document.
This case isn't about discovery, it's about search warrants. In the case of discovery, it's pretty established that a parent company is, generally, required to produce documents of a foreign subsidiary.
The requirements for search warrants are different. Generally, search warrants are only valid for the jurisdiction in which the application comes from. In the case of documents/servers/safe deposit boxes/etc in Mexico, the US would not have jurisdiction, and would be required to gain the cooperation of Mexican law enforcement.
This is why this case is even being heard. The US wanted to force Microsoft to allow a search of a foreign subsidiary's documents, knowing that the law enforcement of the country in question would never execute the search (since it's illegal in Ireland).
Edit:
A key difference between a search warrant and the discovery process is who the courts are ordering to take the action in question. "A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate, judge or Supreme Court official issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find."[0]. Contrast that with "A motion to compel asks the court to order either the opposing party or a third party to take some action. This sort of motion most commonly deals with discovery disputes, when a party who has propounded discovery to either the opposing party or a third party believes that the discovery responses are insufficient."[1]
In the search warrant case, the court is authorizing a law enforcement to take an action. In the motion to compel case, the court is ordering the non-compliant party to take an action.
Now supposed instead I had put that document in a safe deposit box in a bank in Mexico. You would still be able to get a US court order telling me to return the document to you. To avoid contempt of court, I'd have to go to Mexico and retrieve the document.
This case isn't about discovery, it's about search warrants. In the case of discovery, it's pretty established that a parent company is, generally, required to produce documents of a foreign subsidiary.
The requirements for search warrants are different. Generally, search warrants are only valid for the jurisdiction in which the application comes from. In the case of documents/servers/safe deposit boxes/etc in Mexico, the US would not have jurisdiction, and would be required to gain the cooperation of Mexican law enforcement.
This is why this case is even being heard. The US wanted to force Microsoft to allow a search of a foreign subsidiary's documents, knowing that the law enforcement of the country in question would never execute the search (since it's illegal in Ireland).
Edit:
A key difference between a search warrant and the discovery process is who the courts are ordering to take the action in question. "A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate, judge or Supreme Court official issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find."[0]. Contrast that with "A motion to compel asks the court to order either the opposing party or a third party to take some action. This sort of motion most commonly deals with discovery disputes, when a party who has propounded discovery to either the opposing party or a third party believes that the discovery responses are insufficient."[1]
In the search warrant case, the court is authorizing a law enforcement to take an action. In the motion to compel case, the court is ordering the non-compliant party to take an action.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_compel