Yes, based on case law. Courts in the US usually take the view that other countries' privacy laws cannot serve as a defense to the legal obligation to comply with subpoenas, warrants or orders lawfully issued and served when they seek the disclosure of records or other data stored in the US. Though this authority continues to evolve, it is rooted in the long-standing principle that US courts are empowered to exert authority on people and entities over whom they have jurisdiction, even if that authority has consequences overseas. US federal courts have repeatedly and consistently expressed "great reluctance" to excuse the compelled disclosure of records simply because of competing directives from foreign sovereigns. Where a person or entity within the jurisdiction of a court has control over documents or materials, government officials may order that those materials be produced. 

Under federal discovery rules, the issue is centered on whether a party or subpoena recipient has "possession, custody, or control over the requested documents" within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the legal assessment that courts perform in these types of cases is not without due consideration to foreign law.

A party claiming the shelter of foreign law to avoid discovery must first show that foreign law in fact bars production. However, even when this has been shown, there remains a presumption in favor of American courts. Furthermore, states have discovery rules that may affect the analysis.