译者 | 舒方正 华南师范大学 LL.B.
一审 | 赵文磊 波士顿大学 LL.M
二审 | 汪晨涵 复旦大学法律硕士
编辑 | 陈珏雯 西南政法大学本科
郑梓萱 澳门科技大学LL.B
责编 | 林靖珊 中国政法大学研究生
数据出境与国家安全：如何平衡美国证据开示与中国《保密法》的冲突？
1
证据开示
在美国民事诉讼中，美国法律规定了当事方和某些非当事方（以下均简称当事方）的证据开示义务（discovery duty），即有责任根据证据开示请求来提供证据。证据开示的范围较为广泛，以《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure）为例，任何与案件索赔或辩护相关且与案件需求成比例（proportional）的事项，只要它们不受法律特权的保护（non-privileged），都需要被开示。[1]考虑的因素有诉讼中所涉问题的重要性、争议的数量、当事人获取相关信息的难易程度、当事人的资源、证据开示在解决问题上的重要性以及证据开示的负担或者费用是否超过其可能的利益。证据开示范围内的资料不一定可以被呈为证据。如果当事方在协商之后，请求方认为被请求方没有合理的拒绝理由，可以向法院提出动议，要求法院强制被请求方开示证据（motion to compel）。在法院审理并命令被请求方开示证据之后，如果被请求方依然故意不遵守，可能会面临法院的制裁。[2]
[1]《联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条（b）款（1）项。
[2]可参见君合法律评论文章：《君合美国说S4:E2丨美国争议纵横论（一）——美国诉讼中以中国数据出境法律风险抵减证据开示义务的案例分析》。
2
美国数据出境诉讼中的证据开示
近年来，不少中国企业作为被告参与的跨境诉讼案件在美国等司法辖区频繁发生。在这些诉讼中，如果原告或法庭要求被告提交其存储在中国境内的证据，这往往涉及到数据的跨境传输问题。此外，随着《个人信息保护法》、《数据安全法》和《保守国家秘密法》等与数据相关的法律法规的相继出台，我国对数据监管，特别是跨境数据传输的监管力度显著增强。其中，最新的《中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法》已由第十四届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第八次会议于2024年2月27日修订通过，自2024年5月1日起施行。
本文讨论的问题聚焦于，《保守国家秘密法》能否阻却跨境诉讼中的证据提交？中国企业能否据此主张其证据无法跨境提交？美国法院又将采用何种标准去判断？
3
基于外国法主张无法进行证据开示时美国法院的裁判思路
笔者总结发现，目前主要存在两种裁判思路，一种是来自于Aérospatiale案的三因素判断，一种是来自于礼让（comity）分析的五要素判断。
1987年，美国联邦最高法院在Societe Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct. for S. Dist.案[3]中初步确立了当被请求开示方基于外国法主张无法进行证据开示时的裁判思路。该案中，法国飞机制造商Aérospatiale因坠机事故被美国的遇难者家属起诉，美国原告要求法国公司开示其位于法国的数据资料。法国公司主张，在证据位于法国的情况下，证据开示会违反法国的法律。
美国联邦最高法院在该案中指出法院可以考虑“特定事实、主权利益以及诉诸[海牙公约]程序将被证明有效的可能性”三个因素。当事人须向法院呈递确切的证据文件，以证实证据所在国家之法律确实对履行美国法律下披露义务造成阻碍，即存在实际的法律冲突（true conflict），涉及到具体的国家主权利益。
如果存在实际的法律冲突，法院可以依据纽约地区法院提出的五要素礼让（comity）[4]展开分析，根据个案判断是否需要开示证据。但是，这种分析方法的前提要求能够判断具体的因素，如“请求的具体程度”。礼让分析中需要考虑的因素通常包括：
（1）请求被开示文件的重要性；
（2）请求的具体性；
（3）请求的信息是否源于美国境内；
（4）是否存在获取证据的其他替代方式；
（5）不开示会在多大程度上损害美国的利益，开示又会在多大程度上损害证据所在国的利益。
礼让分析中通常需要考虑的因素
在本文分析的案件与类似过往的案例中，中国当事方曾援引2010年或更早版本的《保守国家秘密法》，主张该法对美国法下的开示义务构成障碍，但美国法院往往认为提出该主张的当事方对《保守国家秘密法》的举证不够充分、未能证明实际存在的法律冲突。这一点在下文的裁判文书中也会提及，法院认为由于在没有具体要求ZWSoft提供文件的情况下，无法轻易分析五因素分析法中的几个因素，如“请求的具体程度”，因此法院根据Aérospatiale案中提出的三个因素而不是纽约地区法院使用的五因素礼让分析法来分析采用《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的公约》是否适当（见下文脚注9）。因此，我们也可以得出礼让分析法与Aérospatiale案的三因素判断没有严格的逻辑顺序关系，需要根据案件实际情况判断选择的方法。
[3]See Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522,
546 (1987).
[4]See Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Qi Andrew, 276 F.R.D. 143, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
4
案例概述
在加州北区联邦地区法院审理的Autodesk, Inc. v. ZWCAD Software Co., Ltd.一案中，Autodesk有一款用于辅助设计的明星软件产品，声称被告在开发软件产品时，大量复制了Autodesk的源代码。Autodesk由此基于侵犯著作权和盗用商业秘密起诉被告。在诉讼过程中，Autodesk要求被告开示后者位于中国的软件源代码。被告主张，中国《保守国家秘密法》对“国家秘密”的定义广泛，涵盖“涉及‘国民经济和社会发展’，以及‘科学技术’的事项”。被告主张，其作为一家正在成长的科技公司，源代码的向外输出可能会影响中国国家和经济的发展，故源代码应该属于中国《保守国家秘密法》下的国家秘密。然而，法院认为被告并未充分说明为何中国可能将该公司的源代码认定为国家秘密，且没有提供专家意见或法律渊源以支持其论点，或回应原告专家的相反意见。法院最终强制被告开示证据。
下文是笔者对法院判决的全文翻译，以期全面呈现法院的观点与论证过程，鉴于个人能力水平有限，时间仓促，不当之处还请读者海涵。此外，本文只保留翻译了对理解本案有较大影响与意义的脚注，所译脚注的原文与其余的脚注可参见原判决。
判决全文
Not happy with what it says is the wholesale theft of its proprietary source code, Plaintiff Autodesk, Inc. brought this suit against Defendants ZWCAD Software Co., Ltd. and ZWCAD Design Co., Ltd. for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. That much is not all that unusual; this district is no stranger to such claims.
原告欧特克公司（Autodesk, Inc.）对被告 ZWCAD 软件有限公司（ZWCAD Software Co., Ltd.）和 ZWCAD 设计有限公司（ZWCAD Design Co., Ltd.）大肆窃取其专有源代码的行为感到不满，遂以侵犯版权和盗用商业秘密为由提起诉讼。这并不稀奇，本地区对此类索赔并不陌生。
What is a bit unusual is that much of the evidence relevant to the plaintiff’s claims is located in the People’s Republic of China. To mitigate the risk that discovery of its data and documents outside of China may subject it to liability under Chinese state secret and privacy laws, ZWSoft moves for a protective order directing that discovery be conducted under the Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. ZWSoft alternatively seeks an order that ZWSoft’s source code already deposited in Beijing be made available for inspection only in China and the parties adopt ZWSoft’s amended protective order.
有点不寻常的是，与原告诉讼请求相关的大部分证据都位于中华人民共和国境内。为了降低在中国境外披露其数据和文件可能使其承担中国国家机密和隐私法责任的风险，ZWSoft申请了一项保护令，要求根据《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的公约》（Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters）进行证据披露。此外，ZWSoft还请求法院下达一项命令，规定 ZWSoft已经存放在北京的源代码只能在中国境内供查阅，并且双方适用了ZWSoft修改后的保护令。
Because the court agrees with Autodesk that ZWSoft has not shown that a genuine risk of liability under Chinese law or other factors justify the additional protective measures it seeks, ZWSoft’s motion is DENIED.
由于法院同意Autodesk的观点，即ZWSoft没有证明根据中国法律存在真正的责任风险，也没有其他因素证明其所寻求的额外保护措施是合理的，法院驳回了ZWSoft的动议。
第一部分
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) provides that “[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending.” “The court may, for good cause,” issue an order “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.”
《联邦民事诉讼规则》第26(c)(1)条规定规定，“当事人或任何被要求披露信息的人可以向诉讼待决法院申请保护令。法院可以在理由充分的情况下发布命令，要求不得披露商业秘密或其他保密的研究、开发或商业信息，或仅以特定方式披露。”
The Supreme Court has “long recognized the demands of comity in suits involving foreign states, either as parties or as sovereigns with a coordinate interest in the litigation[5].” American courts considering whether to order discovery from a foreign litigant should therefore “take care to demonstrate due respect for any special problem confronted by the foreign litigant on account of its nationality or the location of its operations, and for any sovereign interest expressed by a foreign state.”
美国联邦最高法院“长期以来一直承认，在涉及外国的诉讼中无论是作为当事方还是作为在诉讼中具有协调利益的主权国，都需要礼让。” 因此，美国法院在考虑是否命令外国诉讼当事人提供证据时，应“注意表现出对外国诉讼当事人因其国籍或业务所在地而面临的任何特殊问题以及外国表达的任何主权利益的应有尊重”。
[5]See Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522,
546 (1987) (citing Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895)).
When a conflict exists between the discovery authorized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sovereign interests implicated by such discovery, a court may direct parties to conduct discovery under the Hague Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters. [6]However, the Hague Convention does not deprive the court of its ordinary powers to compel a foreign litigant to produce evidence[7] or require “the use of its procedures to the exclusion of the Federal Rules procedures whenever evidence located abroad is sought for use in an American court.”
当根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》授权的查明程序与查明所涉及的主权利益发生冲突时，法院可以指示当事人根据《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的公约》（海牙公约）进行查明。然而，海牙公约并不剥夺法院强制外国诉讼当事人提供证据的常规权力，也不要求“当美国法院寻求使用位于国外的证据时，使用《海牙公约》的程序，而不使用《联邦民事诉讼规则》的程序”。
[6]See, e.g., In re Perrier Bottled Water Litig., 138 F.R.D. 348, 356 (D. Conn. 1991) (命令“原告采用《海牙证据公约》规定的程序，从[被告]处获取任何证据，或获取位于法国的材料或信息”); Husa v. Laboratoires Servier SA, 740 A.2d 1092, 1096-97 (N.J. 1999) (要求使用《海牙公约》程序，部分原因是法国的“阻止法规”是法国利益的“有力表现”，“在可能的情况下应当予以考虑”).
[7]See Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. at 539-40 (认为“《海牙公约》并没有剥夺地区法院本应拥有的管辖权，使其无法命令出庭的外国当事人出示位于签署国境内的证据”).
Rather, a party seeking to apply the Hague Convention procedures has the burden to “demonstrate appropriate reasons for employing Convention procedures.” Although the Supreme Court has not “articulate[d] specific rules to guide” whether adoption of the Hague Convention procedures is proper, a court may consider “the particular facts, sovereign interests and likelihood that resort to [Hague Convention] procedures will prove effective.”
相反，寻求适用《海牙公约》程序的一方有责任“证明采用《海牙公约》程序的适当理由”。尽管最高法院没有“阐明特殊规则以指导”采用《海牙公约》程序是否为适当的“具体规则”，但法院可以考虑“特定事实、主权利益以及诉诸《海牙公约》程序将被证明有效的可能性”。
Autodesk provides computer-aided design software which “create[s] digital models and workflows that allow visualization, simulation and analysis of designs before implementation.” AutoCAD is Autodesk’s “flagship product” and largest revenue-generating product. Autodesk alleges that ZWSoft engaged in wholesale copying of “large portions of Autodesk source code” in order to create its software program ZWCAD+.
Autodesk 提供可“创建数字模型和工作流程，以便在实施前对设计进行可视化、模拟和分析”的计算机辅助设计软件，AutoCAD是 Autodesk的“旗舰产品 ”和最大的创收产品。Autodesk 诉称，ZWSoft为了创建其软件程序 ZWCAD+，对Autodesk的“大量源代码”进行了大量复制。
In 2014, Autodesk filed suit against ZWSoft and its United States-based distributor Global Force Direct, LLC in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation.16 Autodesk later amended its complaint to add Hong Kong-based corporation HK ZWCAD Software Ltd. as a defendant.
2014年，Autodesk在加利福尼亚州北区旧金山分部起诉ZWSoft及其美国分销商 Global Force Direct, LLC 侵犯版权和盗用商业秘密。Autodesk后来修改了诉状，添加了香港公司HK ZWCAD Software Ltd.作为被告。
Autodesk also initiated summary proceedings against ZWSoft before the Hague District Court in the Netherlands. ZWSoft opposed discovery of its source code outside of China, and the parties ultimately agreed that ZWSoft could produce its source code in China for the purposes of the Dutch action.The Dutch court then ordered ZWSoft to produce its source code to a custodian in China.
Autodesk还向荷兰海牙地区法院提起了针对 ZWSoft 的简易程序。ZWSoft 反对在中国境外披露其源代码，双方最终同意ZWSoft可以为荷兰诉讼的目的在中国提供其源代码。荷兰法院随后命令ZWSoft向中国的托管人提供其源代码。
Meanwhile, in the Northern District of California, GFD answered the complaint, and the parties entered into a stipulated protective order. After ZWSoft appeared in the case[8], the case was reassigned to the San Jose division for all further proceedings.ZWSoft then moved to dismiss the case and also asked Autodesk to stipulate to follow Hague Convention procedures with regard to the data being sought from China or to amend the protective order to allow for examination of ZWSoft’s data in China.
与此同时，在加利福尼亚州北区法院，GFD 应诉，此后双方签订了一份约定保护令。在ZWSoft出庭后，该案被重新分配到圣何塞法庭进一步审理。随后，ZWSoft提出动议，要求驳回此案，并要求Autodesk同意就从中国获取的数据遵循《海牙公约》程序，或修改保护令以允许在中国境内审查 ZWSoft的数据。
Autodesk declined to consent to adoption of Hague Convention procedures and the parties could not reach a compromise on how to amend the protective order. ZWSoft then filed this motion, seeking that the court order the parties to conduct discovery under the Hague Convention, or in the alternative, that the court order ZWSoft’s source code to be made available for inspection in China and order adoption of ZWSoft’s amended protective order.
Autodesk 拒绝同意采用《海牙公约》程序，双方也未能就如何修改保护令达成妥协。ZWSoft 随后提出本动议，请求法院命令双方根据《海牙公约》进行披露，或者法院命令ZWSoft在中国提供源代码以供检查，并命令采用ZWSoft修改后的保护令。
[8]Autodesk 辩称，ZWSoft 拒绝接受在中国的送达是为了拖延案件进程。See Docket No. 68 at 3-4. 而 ZWSoft 则声称其拒绝送达是无意的，并不表明其不愿意继续审理此案。法院不处理这一争议，因为即使ZWSoft 没有证明拒绝送达是否出于故意，它都有权获得所请求的保护措施。
第二部分
This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This motion was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Civ. L. R. 72-1.28
根据28 U.S.C. § 1332（美国法典第28卷第1332条），本法院具有管辖权。根据民事诉讼规则72-1.28，本动议已提交给本人（指被指定的法官或裁判官）处理。
第三部分
At issue is whether the court should order the adoption of the Hague Convention procedures or in the alternative order adoption of ZWSoft’s amended protective order. Because ZWSoft has not shown that application of the Hague Convention procedures here is justified under Aérospatiale, the court denies ZWSoft’s request to order its adoption[9].Because ZWSoft has not shown that good cause exists for the additional procedures outlined in its amended protective order, the court also denies ZWSoft’s request that the court amend the protective order and require examination of its source code and related documents in China.
问题在于法院是否应下令采用《海牙公约》的程序，或者下令采用ZWSoft修改后的保护令。由于ZWSoft没有证明根据Aérospatiale（译者注：Aérospatiale案的先例规则）在本案中适用《海牙公约》程序是合理的，因此法院拒绝 ZWSoft提出的命令采用该程序的请求。由于ZWSoft没有证明有正当理由在其修改后的保护令中规定额外的程序，法院也驳回了ZWSoft要求法院修改保护令并要求在中国审查其源代码和相关文件的请求。
[9]ZWSoft声称，法院应使用纽约地区法院在“涉及是否遵守《海牙公约》的案件”中使用的五要素礼让分析法来确定在本案中适用《海牙公约》是否适当。See Docket No. 52 at 13. Autodesk则认为，法院应考虑 Aérospatiale案中提出的因素。See Docket No. 52 at 13; see also Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544 (指出法院可以考虑“特定事实、主权利益以及诉诸[海牙公约]程序将被证明有效的可能性”。).
礼让分析要求法院考虑：
（1）请求被开示文件的重要性；
（2）请求的具体性；
（3）请求的信息是否源于美国境内；
（4）是否存在获取证据的其他替代方式；
（5）不开示会在多大程度上损害美国的利益，开示又会在多大程度上损害证据所在国的利益。” See Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Qi Andrew, 276 F.R.D. 143, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal citations omitted). 如上所述，由于ZWSoft 并未证明其源代码的提供涉及主权利益，因此 ZWSoft 并未证明在这两种分析下采用《海牙公约》程序是合理的。
然而，正如 Autodesk 所指出的，尽管本动议并未涉及要求ZWSoft 提供文件的特定请求，但在 ZWSoft 所引用的案例中，寻求适用《海牙公约》程序的外国诉讼当事人已被要求提供某些类别的文件或其他项目。See Docket No. 52 at 13; Docket No. 68 at 5-6; see also Tiffany, 276 F.R.D. at 146 (注意到反对原告关于强制出示“传票要求的所有文件”的动议); Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, 249 F.R.D. 429, 435 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (注意到被告反对原告的证据披露请求); Gucci America, Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (不服地区法院批准原告动议以强制其遵守传票和资产冻结禁令的命令而提起上诉)。 由于在没有具体要求ZWSoft提供文件的情况下，无法轻易分析五因素分析法中的几个因素，如“请求的具体程度”，因此法院根据 Aérospatiale 案中提出的三个因素而不是纽约地区法院使用的五因素礼让分析法来分析采用《海牙公约》是否适当。
First, ZWSoft has not established that genuine sovereign interests pertain to production of the source code and related documents at issue here. As both parties acknowledge, Chinese law prohibits exporting state secrets from China without the government’s permission. However, ZWSoft has not shown that production of its source code and related documents necessarily implicates this prohibition. In particular, ZWSoft does not adequately support its contention that China “may” consider its source code to be or contain state secret information. While ZWSoft may be right that information that could be considered “ordinary business information in the United States” may constitute a state secret under Chinese law, ZWSoft offers nothing specific to the materials at issue here.
首先，ZWSoft并未证明在本案中源代码和相关文件的生成涉及真正的主权利益。正如双方所承认的，中国法律禁止在未经政府许可的情况下从中国出口国家机密。然而，ZWSoft并未证明其源代码和相关文件的提供必然涉及这一禁令。特别是，ZWSoft没有充分证明其关于中国“可能”将其源代码视为或包含国家机密信息的论点。虽然ZWSoft“根据中国法律，可被视为“美国普通商业信息”的信息可能构成国家机密”的观点可能是正确的，但ZWSoft没有提供任何与本案相关材料有关的具体信息。
ZWSoft also do not adequately support its claim that it is “reasonable” to believe that the Chinese government could consider its source code to contain state secrets. Article 2 of China’s State Secrets Law defines state secrets as “matters that have a vital bearing on state security and national interests and, as specified by legal procedure, are entrusted to a limited number of people for a given period of time.” Article 8 expands this definition to include, among other materials, matters that involve “national economic and social development” and “science and technology.” ZWSoft claims that because government interpretation of these “broad” categories is “lacking,” it is “reasonable” to believe that China could find that ZWSoft’s source code is a secret state because it constitutes “technology” the exportation of which from a “successful and growing PRC corporation” would impact China’s “national and economic development.”
ZWSoft也没有充分证明其主张，即认为中国政府可能认为其源代码包含国家秘密是“合理的”。中国《中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法》第2条将国家秘密定义为“国家秘密是关系国家安全和利益，依照法定程序确定，在一定时间内只限一定范围的人员知悉的事项”。第8条（译者注：实则为第9条）扩大了这一定义，除其他材料外，还包括涉及“国民经济和社会发展”以及 “科学和技术”的事项。ZWSoft声称，由于政府对这些“广泛”类别“缺乏解释”，因此“有理由”相信，中国可以认定ZWSoft的源代码属于国家机密，因为它构成了“技术”，而“一家成功且不断发展的中国公司”出口该技术将影响中国的 “国家和经济发展”。
However, ZWSoft not only does not cite to authority or expert declarations that support this belief, but also fails to respond to testimony from Autodesk’s expert Hui Zhang, a former intellectual property judge on the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and an intellectual property attorney, who challenges ZWSoft’s assertions about Chinese secrecy law. In particular, Zhang contends that contrary to ZWSoft’s claims, “Chinese law does not prohibit the disclosure of source code developed by Chinese companies outside of China” and that “there is no broad prohibition against exporting documents relating to ‘science and technology.’”
然而，ZWSoft不仅没有引用权威或专家声明来支持这一观点，也没有回应Autodesk的专家Hui Zhang的证词，Hui Zhang曾是中华人民共和国最高人民法院知识产权法官和知识产权律师，他对ZWSoft关于中国保密法的说法提出了质疑。Zhang特别指出，与ZWSoft的说法相反，“中国法律并不禁止向境外披露中国公司开发的源代码”，而且“并没有广泛禁止与‘科学技术’有关的文件出境”。
Rather, the Chinese government “[n]ormally” considers documents to contain state secrets only if they are “prepared by government agencies or are related to a government-funded project.” Further, Zhang contends that in order to be a state secret, ZWSoft’s source code must be designated as such by the Chinese government. Because ZWSoft’s source code was developed by “a private company, for private business purposes,” Zhang opines that “it is highly unlikely that the source code contains state secrets.”
相反，中国政府“通常”认为，只有“由政府机构编写或与政府资助的项目有关”的文件才包含国家机密。此外，Zhang认为，为了成为国家机密，ZWSoft 的源代码必须由中国政府指定为国家机密。由于ZWSoft的源代码是由“一家私人公司为私人商业目的开发的”，Zhang认为“源代码包含国家机密的可能性很小”。
Rather than presenting expert testimony or other authority that contradicts Zhang’s assertions about Chinese law, ZWSoft claims that Autodesk disregards the “very real and potentially [severe] consequences” ZWSoft could face under Chinese law. In particular, ZWSoft contends that the court must “gloss” over Zhang’s qualification that the Chinese government “[n]ormally” considers only documents prepared by government agencies or in relation to a government-fund project to be state secrets and Zhang’s acknowledgment that she is not “aware” of any cases in which the CAD software or documents relating to CAD software were found to contain state secrets in order to conclude that there is no real risk of liability here. ZWSoft is correct that Zhang’s declaration is not equivalent to a “guarantee” that ZWSoft will not “face stiff and severe government penalties for cross-border production.”
ZWSoft没有提供专家证词或其他权威证据来反驳Zhang对中国法律的论断，而是主张Autodesk忽视了ZWSoft根据中国法律可能面临的“非常真实且潜在的[严重]后果”。特别是，ZWSoft认为，法院必须“掩盖”Zhang的限定条件，即中国政府“通常”只将政府机构编制的文件或与政府资助项目有关的文件视为国家机密，以及Zhang认为她“不知道”有任何案例认定 CAD 软件或与 CAD 软件有关的文件包含国家机密，从而得出结论认为这里不存在真正的责任风险。ZWSoft在这一点上正确，即Zhang的声明并不等同于“保证”ZWSoft不会“因跨境生成而面临严厉和严重的政府处罚”。
However, in light of ZWSoft’s failure to respond with expert testimony or other authority that contradicts Zhang’s assertions, the court cannot credit ZWSoft’s unsubstantiated claims that production of its source code and related document would subject it to genuine risk of violating Chinese state secrecy laws.
然而，鉴于ZWSoft未能提供与Zhang的声明相矛盾的专家证词或其他权威回应，法院不能采信ZWSoft未经证实的关于生成其源代码和相关文件将使其面临违反《中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法》的真实风险的主张。
Further, ZWSoft’s reliance on the Xue Feng case for the proposition that China’s willingness to designate information as a state secret years after it is removed from China presents a risk of liability here is misplaced. A Beijing court sentenced American geologist Xue Feng to eight years in prison after he was found guilty of “spying and collecting state secrets.” The Beijing court found that he had sold documents “on geological conditions of onshore oil wells and a database that gave the coordinates of more than 30,000 oil and gas wells” that belonged to a
government-owned company and its subsidiary to a United States energy company.
此外，ZWSoft以薛峰案为依据，认为中国会在信息被移出中国数年后将信息定为国家机密，给ZWSoft带来责任风险，但这种依据并不适用于本案。美国地质学家薛峰被认定犯有“从事间谍活动和收集国家机密”罪，北京法院判处他8年有期徒刑。北京法院认定，薛峰出售了“关于陆上油井地质条件的文件和一个提供30,000多口油气井坐标的数据库”，这些文件和数据库属于一家国有公司及美国能源公司的子公司。
In contrast, as Autodesk notes, here there is no indication that ZWSoft’s source code and related documents contain information about government-owned companies or that ZWSoft would be required to produce its source code for any other purpose than in connection with this litigation under a protective order.
相反，正如Autodesk所指出的，在本案中，没有迹象表明ZWSoft的源代码和相关文件包含有关国有公司的信息，也没有迹象表明ZWSoft将被要求提供其源代码用于除根据保护令与本案诉讼相关以外的任何其他目的。
ZWSoft also does not adequately support its claim that exporting its source code and related documents outside of China presents a legitimate risk of violating China’s “amorphous” privacy laws. ZWSoft claims that China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued nonbinding data privacy guidelines that do not clearly define “sensitive data” and “suggest” that the Chinese government must consent to transfers of information outside of China’s borders.50 However, even if ZWSoft is correct that Chinese privacy laws are not clear, a generalized assertion that production of ZWSoft’s source code may violate Chinese privacy laws is not sufficient to establish that a genuine sovereign interest is at issue.
ZWSoft也没有充分证明其主张，即向中国境外出口其源代码和相关文件会带来违反中国“不明确的”隐私法的法律风险。ZWSoft声称，中国工业和信息化部发布的不具约束力的数据隐私准则并未明确定义 “敏感数据”， 并 “暗示”必须由中国政府同意将信息转移到中国境外。然而，即使ZWSoft关于中国隐私法不明确的说法是正确的，但笼统地断言ZWSoft源代码的生成可能违反中国隐私法也不足以证明存在真正的主权利益问题。
ZWSoft’s reliance on the Peter Humphrey case is similarly insufficient to show that production of ZWSoft’s source code presents a genuine risk of violating Chinese privacy laws. [10]There, a Shanghai court sentenced antifraud specialists Peter Humphrey and Yu Yingzeng to fines and over two years of prison for misusing Chinese citizens’ personal information. The defendants acknowledged that they had “purchased personal information about Chinese citizens on behalf of clients.” [11]In contrast, here there is no indication that ZWSoft’s source code and other related documents contain personal information about Chinese citizens.
同样，ZWSoft对Peter Humphrey案的引用也不足以证明ZWSoft源代码的生成确实存在违反中国隐私法的风险。在该案中，上海一家法院以滥用中国公民个人信息为由，判处反欺诈专家Peter Humphrey和Yu Yingzeng罚款和两年以上有期徒刑。该案被告承认，他们“代表客户购买了中国公民的个人信息”。相比之下，本案中没有迹象表明ZWSoft的源代码和其他相关文件包含中国公民的个人信息。
[10]See Docket No. 52 at 9-10 (citing James T. Areddy & Laurie Burkitt, “中国隐私案引发在该国经商的风险” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 12, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-privacy-case-raises-risks-of-doing-business-in-country-1407860680).
[11]Docket No. 68-1 at ¶¶ 22-23 (指出本案涉及“用于获取个人信息的手段，如家庭记录和手机使用信息”，被告“被指控非法购买、出售和提供公民个人信息”).
ZWSoft may be correct that ZWSoft cannot allege precisely what information within its source code and related documents the Chinese government might consider to be a state secret because “the ambiguity in the PRC’s state secrecy laws” makes it “unclear when and how they can be applied.” However, Chinese companies may not avoid producing documents in United States litigation by citing to broad concerns that liability may be imposed under “unclear” or “amorphous” Chinese laws. Because ZWSoft has not cited to expert testimony or other authorities that support its characterizations of Chinese state secrecy and privacy laws, ZWSoft’s generalized allegations that production of its source code and related documents may subject it to liability under Chinese laws are insufficient to establish that a genuine sovereign interest is at issue here.
由于“中国国家保密法的模糊性”使得“何时以及如何适用这些法律”变得不明确，因此，ZWSoft在这一点上可能是正确的，即他们无法准确地指控其源代码和相关文件中的哪些信息可能被中国政府视为国家机密。然而，中国公司不能以“不明确”或“无定形”的中国法律可能导致责任的广泛担忧为由，避免在美国诉讼中提供文件。由于ZWSoft没有援引专家证词或其他权威文件来支持其对中国国家保密法和隐私法的描述，因此ZWSoft关于提供其源代码和相关文件可能导致其承担中国法律责任的笼统指控，不足以证明本案涉及真正的主权利益。
Second, the “likelihood that “resort to [Hague Convention] procedures will [not] prove effective” weighs against use of the Hague Convention here. In particular, the Hague Convention procedures are not an effective alternative because these procedures may limit discovery to exclude relevant source code and related documents. To obtain discovery under the Hague Convention, the district court must submit a Letter of Request to the Central Authority in China, which will forward
the letter to the Supreme People’s Court. The Supreme People’s Court will “only execute pretrial discovery requests for documents which…are of direct and close connection to the subject matter of the litigation.”[12]
其次，“诉诸[海牙公约]程序将[不会]被证明有效”的可能性不利于在此使用《海牙公约》。尤其是，《海牙公约》程序不是有效的替代方案，因为这些程序可能会限制披露以排除相关源代码和相关文件。要根据《海牙公约》获得证据披露，地方法院必须向中国中央主管机关提交请求函，中央主管机关会将请求函转发给最高人民法院。最高人民法院将“仅对......与诉讼标的有直接密切联系的文件执行审前披露请求”。
Although “there is evidence that China has honored many judicial requests for documents,”[13]this evidence does not negate the risk the “direct and close connection” limitation may not allow for broad enough discovery here. In particular, the Supreme People’s Court may limit ZWSoft’s production to portions of its source code that directly relate to “common bugs, errors and idiosyncrasies” which Autodesk stated in the complaint even though Autodesk contends that ZWSoft engaged in “wholesale copying of the underlying source code” rather than merely copying the bugs.
尽管“有证据表明中国已经满足了许多司法机构的文件要求”，但这一证据并不能否定“直接和密切联系”的限制导致在此案中可能无法提供足够广泛的证据。特别是，最高人民法院可能会按Autodesk在诉状中声称的将ZWSoft的生成限于其源代码中与“常见错误、错误和特异性”直接相关的部分，而不仅仅是拷贝“错误”部分的代码，即使 Autodesk认为ZWSoft参与了“底层源代码的全盘拷贝”。
[12]See Tiffany, 276 F.R.D. at 155; see also Docket No. 68-1 at ¶ 7 (根据《海牙公约》第23条，中国已声明将执行为从英美法系国家获得审前文件披露而发出的请求函，但只能要求出示与诉讼标的直接和密切相关的文件”。).
[13]See Tiffany, 276 F.R.D. at 156 (注意到“2010年上半年，中国司法协助中心报告称，就民商事案件的司法协助请求向司法部外事司提供了协助，包括......37起案件的调查取证和11起其他案件”。) (内部引用省略); see also Docket No. 52, Exhibit D.
Further, discovery under the Hague Convention is too slow to be an effective alternative to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “[I]t is generally recognized that procedures under the Hague Convention are far more cumbersome than under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” As ZWSoft notes, the court in Tiffany rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that “China’s Hague Convention procedures ‘do not offer a meaningful avenue to discovery’ because the process is likely to be ‘unduly time consuming and expensive, as well as less certain to produce needed evidence than direct use of the Federal Rules.’”
此外，《海牙公约》规定的取证程序过于缓慢，无法有效替代《联邦民事诉讼规则》。“人们普遍认为，《海牙公约》下的程序远比《联邦民事诉讼规则》下的程序繁琐。”正如ZWSoft指出的，在Tiffany案中，法院驳回了原告的主张，即“中国的《海牙公约》程序‘没有提供有意义的取证途径’，因为该程序很可能‘过于耗时和昂贵，而且与直接使用《联邦规则》相比，也不一定能提供所需的证据。’”
However, in Tiffany the court ultimately concluded that application of Hague Convention procedures was proper in part because the discovery requests at issue implicated China’s “significant interest in enforcing its bank secrecy laws.”In contrast, here ZWSoft has not shown that production of its source code and related documents presents a genuine risk of liability under Chinese law such that “the benefits of compliance with PRC laws” justify the costs imposed by application of the Hague Convention.
然而，在 Tiffany 案中，法院最终认定适用《海牙公约》程序是适当的，部分原因是有争议的证据披露请求牵涉到中国“在执行其银行保密法方面的重大利益”。相比之下，在此案中，ZWSoft没有证明根据中国法律，提供其源代码和相关文件会带来实质的责任风险，以至于用“遵守中国法律的好处”来证明适用《海牙公约》所带来的成本是合理的。
Third, ZWSoft has not shown that the “particular facts” of this case warrant application of Hague Convention procedures. ZWSoft’s assertion that Autodesk has “propounded extensive and largely unnecessary discovery” lacks merit because at the time ZWSoft took this position, Autodesk had not even served discovery on ZWSoft.
第三，ZWSoft并未证明本案的“特定事实”证明需要适用《海牙公约》程序。ZWSoft声称Autodesk“提出了大量且基本不必要的证据开示”，这一说法缺乏依据，因为在ZWSoft采取这一立场时，Autodesk甚至尚未向ZWSoft送达证据开示。
Despite this lack of discovery, ZWSoft argues that Autodesk has propounded discovery requests on its United States distributor GFD which are “overly broad as to both time and geographic location and not rationally limited to the needs of the case” and which indicate that ZWSoft “will also receive overly broad written discovery.” However, Autodesk’s assertion that it propounded these discovery requests on GFD because Autodesk believed that GFD is a small entity with “only three known employees” whose entire business “appears to be directed to the subject matter of this lawsuit” suggests that Autodesk is unlikely to propound similarly broad discovery requests on ZWSoft.
尽管缺乏证据披露，但ZWSoft认为，Autodesk向其美国分销商GFD提出的证据披露请求“在时间和地理位置上都过于宽泛，没有根据案件的需要合理地加以限制”，这表明ZWSoft“也将收到过于宽泛的书面证据披露”。然而，Autodesk声称，之所以向GFD提出这些披露请求，是因为Autodesk认为GFD是一个只有“三名已知雇员”的小型实体，其全部业务“似乎都是针对本案诉讼标的”，这表明Autodesk不可能向ZWSoft提出类似的广泛披露请求。
Further, even if the requests Autodesk propounded on GFD did indicate that ZWSoft “will be served with substantially the same requests,” ZWSoft’s belief that these “anticipated” discovery requests will be overly broad is not sufficient to justify imposition of Hague Convention procedures.69 Likewise, ZWSoft’s citation to its motion to dismiss in support of its assertion that Autodesk is trying to use overly broad discovery requests as a “fishing license” to make up for its failure to put ZWSoft on notice of “what specific software source code is at issue” and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is unavailing. Regardless of merits of these claims, ZWSoft’s concerns about the potentially overly broad nature of discovery Autodesk may make in the future are not sufficient to justify imposition of the Hague Convention procedures here.
此外，即使Autodesk对GFD提出的请求确实表明ZWSoft“将被送达大致相同的请求”，ZWSoft认为这些“预期的”取证请求将过于宽泛也不足以成为实施《海牙公约》程序的理由。同样，ZWSoft援引其驳回动议来支持其主张，即 Autodesk试图将过于宽泛的取证请求作为一种“钓鱼许可”，以弥补其未能让 ZWSoft 知晓“有争议的具体软件源代码是什么”以及未能提出可据以给予救济的主张的不足。无论这些诉求的是非曲直如何，ZWSoft公司对Autodesk公司将来可能提出的过于宽泛的取证性质的担忧并不足以成为在此实施《海牙公约》程序的理由。
ZWSoft also has not established that inspection of the source code in China is more efficient than production of the source code in the United States. ZWSoft contends that inspection of the source code in China will serve “judicial economy” and avoid duplicative production because ZWSoft has already made the source code available in Beijing under an order of the Dutch court. However, as Autodesk notes, the source code in China was deposited for the use of a neutral expert which the Dutch court had not yet appointed and which Autodesk had not yet analyzed at the time Autodesk’s opposition was filed.
ZWSoft也没有证明在中国检查源代码比在美国生成源代码更有效率。ZWSoft认为，在中国检查源代码将有助于“司法经济”，并避免重复生成，因为ZWSoft已经根据荷兰法院的命令在北京提供了源代码。然而，正如Autodesk公司所指出的，在中国的源代码是交存给一位中立专家使用的，而荷兰法院尚未指定该专家，Autodesk公司在提交异议书时也尚未对该专家进行分析。
ZWSoft’s argument that having the data examined by a “native speaker” in China is less expensive than bringing the data to the United States and translating it before production similarly lacks merit. Autodesk asserts that it intends to use local attorneys and experts to examine the source code in the United States and that multiple rounds of source code examination as well as motion practice related to the adequacy of the initial deposit of source code are likely. Requiring Autodesk’s attorneys and experts to travel to Beijing every time they need to examine the source code would be more burdensome and expensive than sending the source code to the United States.
同样，ZWSoft关于在中国由“母语人士”审查数据比将数据带到美国并在生成前进行翻译成本更低的论点也缺乏依据。Autodesk公司声称，它打算在美国使用当地的律师和专家对源代码进行审查，并可能进行多轮源代码审查以及与源代码的初始交存是否充分有关的动议实践。要求Autodesk的律师和专家每次都前往北京审查源代码，将比将源代码寄往美国更加繁琐和昂贵。
ZWSoft is correct that as a large multinational company with multiple offices in China, Autodesk is more able than ZWSoft to shoulder burdens imposed by onerous or expensive discovery. But, as explained above, ZWSoft has not shown than a sovereign interest or other factor justifies the additional expense and burden that examination of the source code in China imposes on Autodesk.
作为一家在中国设有多个办事处的大型跨国公司，Autodesk比ZWSoft更有能力承担繁重或昂贵的取证负担，ZWSoft的说法是正确的。但是，正如上文所解释的，ZWSoft没有证明主权利益或其他因素证明在中国审查源代码给 Autodesk带来的额外费用和负担是合理的。
Fourth, ZWSoft has not met its burden to show that good cause exists under Rule 26(c) to amend the protective order to require ZWSoft to collect and make available its source code and related documents for inspection in China rather to produce this data in the United States. “A party asserting good cause [under Rule 26(c)] bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”
第四，ZWSoft 没有履行其举证责任证明根据第 26(c)条的规定，有充分理由修改保护令并要求ZWSoft在中国收集和提供其源代码及相关文件以供检查，而不是在美国提供这些数据。根据《规则》第26(c)条，声称有正当理由的一方当事人有责任就其寻求保护的每份特定文件证明，如果不签发保护令，将会造成具体的损害或伤害。
ZWSoft’s claim the process outlined in the amended order “is authorized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” lacks merit because this assertion does not establish that production and examination of ZWSoft’s source code and related documents in United States will cause a specific prejudice or harm. For instance, ZWSoft claims that Rule 26 authorizes examination of the source code in China because Rule 26 allows courts to limit discovery to promote international comity and because the factors described in proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favor adoption of ZWSoft’s suggested procedures. ZWSoft also contends that the court may properly order adoption of its amended protective order because Rule 34 allows a party to make documents available “as they are kept in the usual course of business” and because the timelines provided in the amended protective order are consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ZWSoft声称修改后的命令中载明的程序“是根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》授权的”，这种说法缺乏法律依据，因为这种说法并不能证明在美国出示和审查ZWSoft的源代码和相关文件会造成具体的损害或伤害。例如，ZWSoft声称，规则第26条允许在中国检查源代码，因为规则第26条允许法院限制披露以促进国际礼让，而且《联邦民事诉讼规则》拟议修正案中描述的因素有利于采纳 ZWSoft建议的程序。ZWSoft还辩称，法院可以适当地命令采纳其修订后的保护令，因为《联邦民事诉讼规则》第34条允许一方当事人提供“在正常业务过程中保存的”文件，而且修订后的保护令中规定的时限符合《联邦民事诉讼规则》。
However, even if ZWSoft is correct that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize the production process outlined in its amended order, this compliance is not sufficient to show that good cause exists for amending the order under Rule 26(c). To the contrary, “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Further, although ZWSoft is that correct that production of trade secrets and source code presents inherent risks that the information produced may lose its trade secret status or value because it can be “copied or stolen without proper security measures,” this risk does not justify amendment of the order.
然而，即使ZWSoft正确地认为《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》授权其修改后的命令中概述的出示程序，这一合规性也不足以表明存在根据第26(c)条修改命令的正当理由。恰恰相反，“没有具体事例或明确推理支持的伤害指控并不符合第26(c)条的测试标准。”此外，尽管ZWSoft认为商业秘密和源代码的生成会带来固有的风险，即所生成的信息可能会失去其商业秘密的地位或价值，因为这些信息可能会“在没有适当安全措施的情况下被复制或窃取”，但这种风险并不能成为修改命令的理由。
As Autodesk notes, ZWSoft does not state why the existing protective order does not sufficiently protect ZWSoft’s information or how the amended order will provide more protection against these risks.ZWSoft itself acknowledges that these risks are “inherent in the production of source code even in the PRC.” Similarly, ZWSoft’s contentions that it was not meaningfully involved in the current protective order because it was not in the case when the order was entered and that this case allows Autodesk access into the “highly proprietary data of a competitor” do not identify specific prejudice or harm that will result if the current protective order is not amended.
正如Autodesk所指出的，ZWSoft没有说明为什么现有的保护令不能充分保护ZWSoft的信息，也没有说明修改后的保护令将如何针对这些风险提供更多的保护。ZWSoft自己也承认，这些风险是“即使在中国生成源代码所固有的”。同样，ZWSoft声称，它在当前的保护令中没有实际意义，因为在保护令下达时它并不在本案中，而且本案允许Autodesk获得“竞争对手的高度专有数据”，但这些说法并没有指出如果不修改当前的保护令将会造成的具体损害或伤害。
ZWSoft also does not show that there is a genuine risk that production of its source code and related documents under the current protective order could subject ZWSoft to liability under Chinese state secret and privacy laws. ZWSoft is correct that China has imposed “severe” penalties upon people who have violated its state secrecy or privacy laws. [14]But once again, ZWSoft’s generalized, unsubstantiated claims about Chinese law do not establish that there is a “present danger that application of the PRC blocking statutes” could subject ZWSoft to liability if it produces its source code and related documents in the United States.
ZWSoft也没有证明，根据目前的保护令提供其源代码和相关文件确实会使 ZWSoft承担中国国家机密和隐私法规定的责任。ZWSoft正确地指出，中国对违反国家保密法或隐私法的人实施了“严厉”的处罚。但ZWSoft对中国法律的概括性、无事实根据的说法再次不能证明，如果ZWSoft在美国出示其源代码和相关文件，就存在“适用中国封锁法规”可能使ZWSoft承担法律责任的“现实危险”。
[14]See Docket No. 71 at 6 n.4 (citing Erik Echholm, “China State Secret : Daily Newspapers,” Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2000, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-04-27/news/0004270268_1_xinjiang-radio-free-asia-rebiya-kadeer) (描述中国法院如何在2000年判处该妇女八年监禁，因为她将当地报纸上标有与“政府打击民族分裂主义 ”有关的“官方讲话和文章”寄给了她在美国的丈夫。
第四部分
Because ZWSoft has not shown that good cause exists for the application of the HagueConvention or amendment of the protective order, ZWSoft"s motion is DENIED
SO ORDERED
由于ZWSoft没有证明存在适用《海牙公约》或修改保护令的正当理由，因此驳回ZWSoft的动议。
Dated: March 27.2015
PAUL S.GREWALUnited States Magistrate Judge
感兴趣的读者可以登录相关网站阅读判决书原文：
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2014cv01409/275895/
5
未来展望
过去在实务中不乏与本案类似的的案例，但是这些案件中被告所提出的中国法律阻却证据提交的主张均未获得美国法院的支持。比如，本判决中法院认为“笼统地断言ZWSoft源代码的生成可能违反中国隐私法也不足以证明存在真正的主权利益问题”，实际上采取了一种实质判断的标准，需要具体证明涉及何种中国的主权利益。
2024年修订的中国《保守国家秘密法》对国家秘密的范围、密级及保护制度作出了更为详尽的规定。在越来越频发的类案中，中国当事人能否根据修订后的《保守国家秘密法》对中国主权利益进行更加具体详尽的举证，达到美国法院减少证据开始义务的标准值得进一步思考和关注。本文对美国法院裁判思路的梳理以及Autodesk, Inc. v. ZWCAD Software Co., Ltd.案中具有代表性的法院论述希望也能起到抛砖引玉的作用。
声明：本文来自中美法律评论，版权归作者所有。文章内容仅代表作者独立观点，不代表安全内参立场，转载目的在于传递更多信息。如有侵权，请联系 anquanneican@163.com。
