Case 2:16-mj-01061-TJR Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 25 of 29 1. Risks to International Comity The court acknowledges that the presumption against extraterritorial application is utilized to protect against "unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord." Microsoft, 829 F.3d at 210 (quoting Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)). One scholar has suggested that when determining whether a search and seizure warrant for electronic data has been applied extraterritorially, the court should not look to where the Fourth Amendment seizure or invasion of privacy occurred, as the Second Circuit majority panel did in Microsoft, but whether there was interference with a foreign state's sovereignty to determine its own rules regarding privacy of data stored in its domestic server. See Daskal, supra at 372 n.170. However, Judge Cabranes, in his opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en bane, stated that "Morrison ... does not permit a court to conclude that a particular application of a statute is extraterritorial simply because it believes that the application threatens international comity." See 2017 WL 362765, at *9 n.23 (Cabranes, J., dissenting). Even if the interference with a foreign state's sovereignty is implicated, the fluid nature of Google's cloud technology makes it uncertain which foreign country's sovereignty would be implicated when Google accesses the content of communications in order to produce it in response to legal process. As explained earlier, Google's architecture not only divides user data among data centers located in different countries, but also partitions user data into shards. Furthermore, the data automatically moves data from one location on Google's network to another as frequently as needed, to optimize for performance, reliability and other efficiencies. 25