Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
|
|
- Rafe Greene
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP Introduction In many US federal civil lawsuits (particularly cases involving intellectual property, such as copyrights, patents, and/or trade secrets), sophisticated counsel negotiate an agreement a protective order to, among other things, prevent the unauthorized distribution of their clients proprietary information. Given the broad scope of many civil discovery requests, most of these protective orders include a provision limiting the use of material produced in discovery solely to that litigation. After the parties have agreed to the terms of the protective order, it is endorsed by a US federal judge and it becomes binding on the parties and, often times, third parties. While clients (understandably) still may be anxious about the production of their proprietary information, the vehicle of the civil protective order helps to allay the clients fears that the documents they produce in response to a civil discovery request will not be used against them in another civil lawsuit, or worse, in a criminal investigation. Those fears are amplified with foreign companies which may be outside of the jurisdiction of a US court for purposes of effecting service of a grand jury subpoena (and, therefore, such foreign companies would have no obligation to produce information in response to a grand jury subpoena), 1 but whose foreign based documents may be located in the US by virtue of their production in civil litigation. Put simply, even if civil parties enter into a protective order limiting access to, and use of, a foreign defendant s documents only to that litigation, a foreign defendant may be faced with choosing between: (1) producing the requested documents in the civil litigation notwithstanding the risk of potential criminal exposure in the event that the US government later obtained the defendant s foreign based documents in response to a grand jury subpoena served on the civil plaintiff; or (2) refusing to comply with the discovery request and facing civil discovery sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as an adverse inference instruction at trial, a monetary penalty, or, in the most extreme case, termination of the litigation. With increasing scrutiny by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) on intellectual property cases, a foreign company being sued by a competitor in the United States also may become the target of a federal criminal investigation. Whether or not the US government may obtain a defendant s foreignbased documents by serving a grand jury subpoena on a civil plaintiff, despite the existence of a civil protective order, turns on the law of the federal Circuit Court in which the case is pending. The majority of federal US Circuit Courts (including recent decisions by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the US Court of Appeals for the This document and any discussions set forth herein are for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, which has to be addressed to particular facts and circumstances involved in any given situation. Review or use of the document and any discussions does not create an attorney client relationship with the author or publisher. To the extent that this document may contain suggested provisions, they will require modification to suit a particular transaction, jurisdiction or situation. Please consult with an attorney with the appropriate level of experience if you have any questions. Any tax information contained in the document or discussions is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code. Any opinions expressed are those of the author. Bloomberg Finance and its affiliated entities do not take responsibility for the content in this document or discussions and do not make any representation or warranty as to their completeness or accuracy.
2 Ninth Circuit) hold that a federal grand jury subpoena supersedes the provisions of a civil protective order per se. On the other hand, two minority rules have emerged. At least one Circuit Court has articulated that civil parties should be able to rely on the enforceability of their agreements, even against the government, barring some "compelling need" by the government for the requested information. Other Circuit Courts urge that there is a "rebuttable presumption" with respect to the enforcement of grand jury subpoenas unless the person seeking to avoid the subpoena can demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances sufficient to do so. This is a significant issue for foreign companies which do business in the United States. Indeed, because of the Circuit split and the Ninth Circuit s application of the per se rule, in White & Case, 2 counsel filed petitions for certiorari with the US Supreme Court (Nos and ); however, on June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petitions. Given the Supreme Court s decision not to address the issue, the purpose of this article is to summarize the split among Circuit Court authority and to educate foreign civil defendants regarding the risk of criminal exposure stemming from the production of documents in civil discovery, notwithstanding the entry of a protective order. Overview of White & Case The White & Case matter began as an investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into alleged price fixing by several foreign corporations that manufacture liquid crystal display (LCD) panels. After the DOJ s investigation became publicized, multiple civil actions were filed against the foreign corporations under investigation. These parallel civil actions were consolidated into a multi district litigation in the US District Court for the Northern District of California before US District Judge Susan Illston. 3 During civil discovery, plaintiffs requested production of a number of documents from the foreign defendants, including documents held in the defendants offices abroad. A protective order was entered in December 2007 as a result of the civil discovery requests and the defendants reticence about producing competitively sensitive materials to their competitors. The civil protective orders restricted the plaintiffs use of materials produced in the civil litigation to that action alone. 4 In reliance upon this protective order, defendants produced competitively sensitive materials, including the requested documents held in their foreign offices, pursuant to the broad scope of discovery under Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Two years later, the DOJ moved to modify the civil protective order to copy and review all materials for the purposes of using the foreign defendants document productions in the parallel criminal investigation. The District Court referred the modification issue to a Special Master, who determined that the DOJ s request "expand[ed] the DOJ s subpoena power beyond its current geographical limits" by attempting to reach foreignbased documents that would not have been subject to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure but for discovery in the parallel civil actions. 5 The District Court adopted the Special Master s report and quashed the subpoenas, denying the DOJ the right to copy foreign documents and deposition transcripts of the defendants employees (foreign nationals). The Ninth Circuit, one of twelve regional US Circuit Courts, reversed the decision. Addressing the District Court s concern regarding the foreign nature of the documents and the reach of the grand jury subpoenas, the Ninth Circuit stated that "[b]y chance of litigation, the documents have been moved from outside the grasp of the grand jury to within its grasp. No authority forbids the government from closing its grip on what lies within the jurisdiction of the grand jury." 6 Relying upon the reasoning of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits in cases involving only documents within the US, the Ninth Circuit concluded that
3 subpoenas served on the civil litigants law firms including White & Case should be enforced because of a "per se rule that a grand jury subpoena takes precedence over a civil protective order." The Ninth Circuit also specifically noted a lack of collusion between the government and the civil plaintiffs. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit may have crafted an exception to the application of the per se rule in cases where the government has engaged in bad faith tactics or excessive involvement in civil proceedings. In its petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court, White & Case discussed the current three way split among the Circuit Courts over the tension between civil protective orders and grand jury subpoenas, and addressed the rejection of the per se rule by the First, Second and Third Circuits. White & Case then argued that civil protective orders supersede grand jury subpoenas, particularly in cases where, but for the parallel civil action, the foreign based documents would have been inaccessible to the government via a grand jury subpoena. In a Fourth Circuit case decided on June 15, 2011, a party in In re Grand Jury Subpoena made the same argument, specifically alleging collusion between the government and the civil plaintiff and that the government was over reaching for documents to which it was not entitled. 7 The Circuit Court Split As discussed by White & Case, there is currently a three way split among the Circuit Courts concerning the tension between civil protective orders and grand jury subpoenas. The Ninth Circuit, in deciding White & Case, adopted the approach of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits in holding that there is a per se rule allowing a grand jury subpoena to trump a civil protective order. In contrast, the Second Circuit follows a compelling need rule, which only allows a grand jury subpoena to trump a civil protective order where the protective order has been improvidently granted or where the government has demonstrated a compelling need or extraordinary circumstance justifying access to the materials. Rejecting both of these approaches, the First and Third Circuits instead assume a rebuttable presumption where the grand jury subpoena trumps a civil protective order unless the person seeking to avoid the subpoena can demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. No other Circuit Court has decided the issue. The Per Se Rule In White & Case, the Ninth Circuit declined to provide any unique analysis on the issue of competing civil protective orders and grand jury subpoenas, instead explicitly adopting the earlier reasoning of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits. The Fourth Circuit adopted a per se rule in favor of enforcing grand jury subpoenas after balancing the costs and benefits of enforcing one over the other. In In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 8 the Fourth Circuit considered the competing interests of the grand jury s authority to gather evidence in a criminal investigation and the civil court s goals of liberal discovery and efficient dispute resolution. Balancing these interests, the Court found that the civil protective order, which the Court recognised as not being completely effective in facilitating civil discovery, was outweighed by the grand jury s constitutional and statutory authority and its "right to all relevant evidence." The Court further concluded that a protective order is a "significant impediment to a grand jury investigation," and held that the existence of a valid civil protective order is not sufficient grounds to quash a grand jury subpoena for documents that may be located in the United States. On June 15, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this decision with respect to the production of foreign based documents in response to a grand jury subpoena. 9 Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit found in In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Williams), 10 that protective orders are "merely a facilitating device and should not be used to shield relevant information from a valid grand jury subpoena." Like the Fourth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit held that the interests in facilitating grand jury investigations outweigh the interests in efficiently resolving civil cases.
4 The Ninth Circuit thus became the third Circuit Court to apply the per se rule when faced with this issue. In White & Case, however, the Ninth Circuit appears to be the only Circuit Court to create a potential exception to the per se rule where the government and civil litigants collude to obtain discovery materials. This decision appears to rely upon earlier opinions from the Fourth and Eighth Circuits finding that collusion between the government and civil litigants in parallel discovery may render a grand jury subpoena improper and subject to being quashed. 11 The Fourth Circuit s most recent decision regarding the tension between civil protective orders and grand jury subpoenas appears to recognise the collusion exception articulated by the Ninth Circuit, even though the Fourth Circuit may not have found collusion in that particular case. 12 Aside from the collusion exception, which has never been conclusively established, in the Fourth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, foreign defendants must consider, at the outset of a civil litigation matter, the potential for future criminal exposure in connection with the production of documents in response to civil discovery requests. In these Circuit Courts, the US government may obtain a defendant s foreign based documents by subpoenaing a civil plaintiff who may be eager to cooperate with the government as a means of exerting pressure on the foreign defendant. Of course, the failure to produce relevant documents in a civil proceeding may result in sanctions, such as an adverse inference instruction, monetary penalties, or the termination of the litigation. The "Compelling Need" Rule Unlike the Fourth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, the Second Circuit applies a compelling need rule, emphasising that the parties reliance on protective orders presumptively outweighs the government s need for access to discovery produced in private litigation. In Martindell v. Int l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 13 the Second Circuit concluded that "absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of a [civil] protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need... a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third party, including the government." The Second Circuit later considered the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits per se rule in In re Grand Jury Subpoena Deuces Tecum Dated April 19, In rejecting the per se rule and affirming its earlier holding in Martindell, the Second Circuit expressly found that a protective order does not violate public policy when it prohibits government access to civil discovery documents, even when it facilitates concealment of information relevant to a criminal investigation. Recently, the Tenth Circuit issued a holding that suggests it would adopt the Second Circuit s approach if given a case on point. 15 These decisions establish the Second Circuit as the most favorable to foreign corporations undergoing parallel civil and criminal investigations. Within this jurisdiction, a foreign corporate defendant may comply with a civil discovery request pursuant to the terms of a protective order with much greater confidence that it will be protected from the subsequent disclosure of its foreign based documents in response to a grand jury subpoena. The "Rebuttable Presumption" The First and Third Circuits have departed both from the per se rule and the compelling need rule. These Circuit Courts instead apply a rebuttable presumption that the grand jury subpoena trumps a civil protective order unless the person seeking to avoid the subpoena can demonstrate the existence of "exceptional circumstances." 16 This presumption is a direct contradiction to the Second Circuit s compelling need rule, which places the burden on the party attempting to enforce the subpoena. Although both the First and the Third Circuits expressly rejected the per se rule approach to competing civil protective orders and grand jury subpoenas, neither has enforced a civil protective order against a grand jury subpoena. Thus, although the approaches are different, the results of the per se rule and the rebuttable presumption rule e.g.,
5 allowing the government to obtain civil discovery materials using a grand jury subpoena appear to be the same. In other words, foreign corporations in these jurisdictions must be mindful of the risks of criminal exposure when considering the production of relevant and responsive materials. Conclusion As outlined above, the jurisdiction in which a case is filed (which may incentivize forum shopping) or pending (and from where the grand jury subpoena issues) may have significant effects on the scope of discovery. The US government may be able to circumvent the restrictions on discovery of a foreign company (in a criminal case) by serving a grand jury subpoena on a civil plaintiff seeking a defendant s foreign based documents. This is particularly significant in District Courts located in the Fourth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, where federal courts apply a per se rule regarding the enforceability of grand jury subpoenas as against civil protective orders. As such, foreign corporations and their counsel must be aware of the critical consequences of their responses to civil discovery requests, particularly where a parallel criminal action could proceed. Thomas P. O Brien is a Litigation Partner in the Los Angeles office of Paul Hastings LLP, and Daniel Prince is a Litigation Associate in the Los Angeles office of Paul Hastings LLP. Mr. O'Brien may be reached at thomasobrien@paulhastings.com, and Mr. Prince may be reached at danielprince@paulhastings.com. The authors thank Deborah Kang and Sarah Kelly Kilgore for their assistance. 2 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 627 F.3d 1143, 1144 (9th Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed sub nom. White & Case, LLP v. U.S., No (U.S. Feb. 25, 2011). 3 Both the civil and criminal actions were tried before US District Judge Illston. 4 Significantly, the protective order prohibited any party from disclosing the information to third parties, including persons working in non legal departments of the plaintiff corporations. 5 In re TFT LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. M SI, MDL. No. 1827, 2010 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 6 Id. 7 No , 2011 BL at *12 13 (4th Cir. June 15, 2011) F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988). 9 No , 2011 BL at *12 (4th Cir. June 15, 2011) F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1993). 11 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated Feb. 28, 2002, 472 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2007); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 175 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 1999). 12 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No , 2011 B at *14 (4th Cir. June 15, 2011) F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991). 15 See SEC v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2010). 16 In re: Grand Jury, 286 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2002); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Roach), 138 F.3d 442 (1st Cir. 1998). 1 Grand jury subpoenas may be served on US nationals or residents in foreign countries pursuant to Rule 17(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 1783, but there are no regulations regarding non citizens abroad. Courts have declined to find personal jurisdiction over these entities because of the extraterritorial nature of their holdings.
Case3:07-md SI Document7618 Filed02/19/13 Page1 of 8
Case:0-md-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION / This Order Relates to: INDIRECT-PURCHASER
More informationNew York Court of Appeals Permits Extraterritorial Seizure of Assets in Aid of Judgments
June 2009 New York Court of Appeals Permits Extraterritorial Seizure of Assets in Aid of Judgments BY JAMES E. BERGER Introduction On June 4, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Koehler
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MDL No. In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. Case No. C-0- JST
More informationSupreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA
theantitrustsource w w w. a n t i t r u s t s o u r c e. c o m A u g u s t 2 0 1 3 1 Supreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA Blake L. Harrop S States
More informationChicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements By Bonnie Burke, Lawrence & Bundy LLC and Christina Tellado, Reed Smith LLP Companies with employees across
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 PJH 0 0 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE
More informationby Harvey M. Applebaum and Thomas O. Barnett
ANTITRUST LAW: Ninth Circuit upholds Kodak's liability for monopolizing the "aftermarket" for servicing of its equipment but vacates some damages and modifies injunction. by Harvey M. Applebaum and Thomas
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 290 Filed: 06/21/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:7591
Case: 1:10-cv-04387 Document #: 290 Filed: 06/21/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:7591 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION HELFERICH PATENT LICENSING, L.L.C.
More informationCase 3:07-cv JST Document 5169 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-JST Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates To: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER
More informationCase 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-05101-MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TALBOT TODD SMITH CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 13-5101 UNILIFE CORPORATION,
More informationDOJ Stays Are Often Unfair To Private Antitrust Plaintiffs
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com DOJ Stays Are Often Unfair To Private Antitrust Plaintiffs
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in United States v. Microsoft Corporation
United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in United States v. Microsoft Corporation Court Will Review Whether a Warrant Issued Under the U.S. Stored Communications Act Compels a U.S.-Based Entity to
More information3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
More informationReverse Payment Settlements In Pharma Industry: Revisited
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Reverse Payment Settlements In Pharma Industry: Revisited
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action File No.: v. Defendant. CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER By stipulation and agreement of the parties,
More informationThe Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,
More informationSupreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement
Supreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement Courts May Award Foreign Lost Profits Where Infringement Is Based on the Export of Components of Patented Invention Under
More informationThe Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees
The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees BY ROBERT M. MASTERS & IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV November 2013 On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court
More informationCase 1:07-cv PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-01144-PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., AARON J. WESTRICK, Ph.D., Civil Action No. 04-0280
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver
United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver By: Roland C. Goss August 31, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the second day of this
More informationEmployment Discrimination Litigation
Federal Appellate Court Allows Sex Discrimination Class Action Encompassing Up To 1.5 Million Class Members SUMMARY On April 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which encompasses
More informationRAMBUS, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Impact on Standards and Antitrust
RAMBUS, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Impact on Standards and Antitrust American Intellectual Property Law Association IP Practice in Japan Committee October 2009, Washington, DC JOHN A. O BRIEN LAW
More informationSEC Disgorgement Issue Ripe For High Court Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com SEC Disgorgement Issue Ripe For High Court
More informationAntitrust and Intellectual Property: Recent Developments in the Pharmaceuticals Sector
September 2009 (Release 2) Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Recent Developments in the Pharmaceuticals Sector Aidan Synnott & William Michael Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP www.competitionpolicyinternational.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 0 1 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney KENDALL J. NEWMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 01 I Street, Suite -0 Sacramento, CA 1 Telephone: ( -1 GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2015. ExhibitA
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2015 06:04 PM INDEX NO. 650312/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2015 ExhibitA SUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEW YORK COUNTYOFNEW YORK BANK HAPOALIM B.M., vs.
More information9th Circ.'s Expansive Standard For Standing In Breach Case
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 9th Circ.'s Expansive Standard For Standing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No: 14 C 206 )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., and TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 14 C 206 ATTURO TIRE CORP., and SVIZZ-ONE Judge
More informationThe Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation
The Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (In re Charter
More informationClient Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782
Number 1383 August 13, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Eleventh Circuit Holds That Parties to Private International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals May Seek Discovery Assistance
More informationCase 3:14-cv EMC Document 138 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LORETTA LITTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER INC, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-emc RELATED
More informationCOMMENTARY. The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework. Case Background
August 2014 COMMENTARY The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework Spoliation of evidence has, for some time, remained an important topic relating to the discovery
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION
Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 45 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION TERRYL T. MATT, CV 15-28-GF-BMM Plaintiff, vs. ORDER UNITED
More informationCase3:11-mc CRB Document11 Filed08/19/11 Page1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:-mc-0-CRB Document Filed0// Page of MELINDA HARDY (Admitted to DC Bar) SARAH HANCUR (Admitted to DC Bar) U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of the General Counsel 0 F Street, NE, Mailstop
More informationCOMPULSORY EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION: PROS AND CONS FOR EMPLOYERS
COMPULSORY EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION: PROS AND CONS FOR EMPLOYERS by Frank Cronin, Esq. Snell & Wilmer 1920 Main Street Suite 1200 Irvine, California 92614 949-253-2700 A rbitration of commercial disputes
More informationSubstantive Consolidation and Nondebtor Entities: The Fight Continues. May/June Daniel R. Culhane
Substantive Consolidation and Nondebtor Entities: The Fight Continues May/June 2011 Daniel R. Culhane Although it has been described as an extraordinary remedy, the ability of a bankruptcy court to order
More informationBest Practices in Multi-Defendant Litigation
Best Practices in Multi-Defendant Litigation IPO Annual Meeting September 12-14, 2010 IPO 2010 Annual Meeting 1 Speakers Moderator: Elizabeth Ann "Betty" Morgan The Morgan Law Firm P.C. William Bergmann
More informationCase Background. Ninth Circuit Ruling
May 16, 2018 CLIENT ALERT In a Break from Other Circuits, the Ninth Circuit Holds that Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act Requires Only a Showing of Negligence, Setting the Stage for Potential Supreme Court
More informationThe Supreme Court Decision in Empagran
The Supreme Court Decision On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A, 2004 WL 1300131 (2004). This closely watched
More informationSTREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES
JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective JULY 15, 2009 STREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution Centers
More informationCommon law reasoning and institutions Civil and Criminal Procedure (England and Wales) Litigation U.S.
Litigation U.S. Just Legal Services - Scuola di Formazione Legale Via Laghetto, 3 20122 Milano Comparing England and Wales and the U.S. Just Legal Services - Scuola di Formazione Legale Via Laghetto, 3
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1471 CLEARPLAY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAX ABECASSIS and NISSIM CORP, Defendants-Appellants. David L. Mortensen, Stoel Rives LLP, of Salt
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 Brent H. Blakely (SBN ) bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP Parkview Avenue, Suite 0 Manhattan Beach, California 0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile:
More informationForeign Aid for Antitrust Litigants: Impact of the Intel Decision By Richard Liebeskind, Bryan Dunlap and William DeVinney
Foreign Aid for Antitrust Litigants: Impact of the Intel Decision By Richard Liebeskind, Bryan Dunlap and William DeVinney U.S. courts are known around the world for allowing ample pre-trial discovery.
More informationCase 1:17-cv WYD-MEH Document 9 Filed 09/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:17-cv-02280-WYD-MEH Document 9 Filed 09/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02280-WYD-MEH ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
More informationInternational Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now
International Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now Shawn Gorman and Christopher Swickhamer, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. I. Introduction The Plague of Inequitable Conduct Allegations
More informationCase3:13-cv SI Document28 Filed09/25/13 Page1 of 5
Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 HARMEET DHILLON, v. DOES -0, Plaintiff, Defendants. / No. C - SI ORDER DENYING IN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ISLAND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LLC, LIDS CAPITAL LLC, DOUBLE ROCK CORPORATION, and INTRASWEEP LLC, v. Plaintiffs, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS,
More informationUnited States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. TESSERA, INC., Petitioner(s), Respondent(s). / ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT
More informationCh. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES GENERAL PROVISIONS
Ch. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES Sec. 41.1. Scope. 41.2. Construction and application. 41.3. Definitions. 41.4. Amendments to regulation.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 15-525-SLR/SRF ALCON LABORATORIES, INC. and ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationThe Attorney as Third-Party Neutral: Navigating Ethical Obligations
The Attorney as Third-Party Neutral: Navigating Ethical Obligations John M. Delehanty Partner Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. Washington, D.C. April 20, 2012 Sources of Ethical Rules
More informationwhich shall govern any matters not specifically addressed in these rules.
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PART RULES -- PART 53 These International Arbitration Part Rules supplement the Part 53 Practice Rules, which shall govern any matters not specifically addressed in these rules.
More informationREPRESENTATION AGREEMENT
REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT This Contingent Fee Agreement for the performance of legal services and payment of attorneys' fees (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is between (hereinafter "Client")
More informationFTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
OF INTEREST FTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Interesting and difficult questions lie at the intersection of intellectual property rights and
More informationKokesh v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That a Five-Year Statute of Limitations Applies When the SEC Seeks Disgorgement in Enforcement Actions
Kokesh v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That a Five-Year Statute of Limitations Applies When the SEC Seeks Disgorgement in Enforcement Actions The Decision Builds Upon the Court s 2013 Holding That the
More informationMONTEBELLO HILLS. Montebello, CA QUICK FACTS VIEW MAP REQUEST MORE INFO
MONTEBELLO HILLS Montebello, CA PROPERTY OVERVIEW QUICK FACTS Montebello Hills represents a generational opportunity to acquire an unimproved site planned for up to 1,200 residential units within 10 miles
More informationWhat s So Special About Treaty Arbitration?: U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Its First International Investment Treaty Arbitration Case
What s So Special About Treaty Arbitration?: U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Its First International Investment Treaty Arbitration Case BY IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV, JOSEPH R. PROFAIZER & DANIEL PRINCE December 2013
More informationA Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A
presents Multi-Defendant Patent Litigation: Controlling Costs and Pooling Resources Strategies for Joint Defense Groups, Joint Defense Agreements, and Privilege Issues A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS ZABOROWSKI; VANESSA BALDINI; KIM DALE; NANCY PADDOCK; MARIA
More informationDISCOVERY IN DECLINED QUI TAM CASES
DISCOVERY IN DECLINED QUI TAM CASES Federal Bar Association s 2018 Qui Tam Conference February 28, 2018 Susan S. Gouinlock, Esq. Wilbanks and Gouinlock, LLP Jennifer Verkamp, Esq. Morgan Verkamp Sara Kay
More informationWalking Gracefully through the Minefield. Contract Clauses and Practical Tips to Help Avoid Litigation
Walking Gracefully through the Minefield Contract Clauses and Practical Tips to Help Avoid Litigation Eric Fishman Partner Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Jennifer K. Mailander Associate General Counsel
More informationApril 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY
April 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Developments in U.S. Law Regarding a More Liberal Approach to Discovery Requests Made by Foreign Litigants Under 28 U.S.C. 1782 In these times of global economic turmoil,
More informationUnit 3 Dispute Resolution ARE 306. I. Litigation in an Adversary System
Unit 3 Dispute Resolution ARE 306 I. Litigation in an Adversary System In an adversarial system, two parties present conflicting positions to a judge and, often, a jury. The plaintiff (called the petitioner
More informationReexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective
Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective AIPLA 2007 Spring Meeting June 22, 2007 Jeffrey M. Fisher, Esq. Farella Braun + Martel LLP jfisher@fbm.com 04401\1261788.1
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 6, NO. S-1-SC-35469
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 6, 2017 4 NO. S-1-SC-35469 5 IN THE MATTER OF EMILIO JACOB CHAVEZ, ESQUIRE 6 An Attorney Licensed to Practice
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Case 4:11-mc-00073-RH-CAS Document 71 Filed 11/20/12 Page 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION In re Application of: The REPULIC
More informationCase 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338
Case 2:15-cv-00961-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 NEXUSCARD INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BROOKSHIRE
More informationTerms of Service and Use Agreement
Terms of Service and Use Agreement READ THIS TERMS OF SERVICE AND USE AGREEMENT BEFORE ACCESSING indianainvestmentwatch.com Welcome to indianainvestmentwatch.com (referred to as indianainvestmentwatch.com,
More informationInsurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-012 Filing Date: February 6, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-35469 IN THE MATTER OF EMILIO JACOB CHAVEZ, ESQUIRE An Attorney Licensed to
More informationLucia Will Not Address Essential Problem With SEC Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lucia Will Not Address Essential Problem
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Forecloses Non-U.S. Corporate Liability Under the Alien Torts Statute
U.S. Supreme Court Forecloses Non-U.S. Corporate Liability Under the Alien Torts Statute Non-U.S. Corporations May Not Be Sued by Non-U.S. Plaintiffs Under the Alien Torts Statute for Alleged Violations
More informationPERILS OF JOINT REPRESENTATION OF CORPORATIONS AND CORPORATE EMPLOYEES
This article is reprinted with the permission of the author and the American Corporate Counsel Association as it originally appeared in the ACCA Docket, vol. 19, no. 8, at pages 90 95. Copyright 2001,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 10-0366 444444444444 IN RE JOHN DOES 1 AND 2, RELATORS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationNos , , , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-10492 09/04/2014 ID: 9229254 DktEntry: 103 Page: 1 of 20 Nos. 12-10492, 12-10493, 12-10500, 12-10514 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationPATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ) ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 01-498 (RWR) ) OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ) TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
More informationDirect Phone Number: Last Name: Title: Alliance Primary Contact (if different than authorized signatory contact): First Name:
Thank you for your interest in the CommonWell Health Alliance. To help us process your membership application, please complete the below information along with your signed Membership agreement, which requires
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1491 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BASIL J. MUSNUFF,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Nos. 13-1289 & 13-1292 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States C.O.P. COAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GARY E. JUBBER, TRUSTEE,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-136 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MEGAN MAREK, v. Petitioner, SEAN LANE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Limits Investor Suits for Misleading Statements of Opinion
March 25, 2015 United States Supreme Court Limits Investor Suits for Misleading Statements of Opinion The United States Supreme Court issued a decision yesterday that resolves a split in the federal courts
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, FIRST DISTRICT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, FIRST DISTRICT Yuling Zhan, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) No: 04 M1 23226 Napleton Buick Inc, ) Defendant ) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-2641 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Filed: 09/13/2017 (1 of 11) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:
More informationLexmark Could Profoundly Impact Patent Exhaustion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lexmark Could Profoundly Impact Patent Exhaustion
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V.,
Case: 16-1346 Document: 105 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2016-1346 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCase 1:15-mc P1 Document 21 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:15-mc-00081-P1 Document 21 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE APPLICATION OF REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DISCOVERY FROM
More informationIn this securities class action suit filed against. Lockheed Martin Corporation and three Lockheed executives, the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------- x CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Defendant.
Case 5:13-cv-14005-JEL-DRG ECF No. 99 filed 08/21/18 PageID.2630 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Signature Management Team, LLC, v. John Doe, Plaintiff,
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements
Number 1044 June 10, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Second Circuit Wades Into the PSLRA Safe Harbor The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements Specific,
More informationCorporate Litigation: Standing to Bring Consumer Data Breach Claims
Corporate Litigation: Standing to Bring Consumer Data Breach Claims Joseph M. McLaughlin * Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP April 14, 2015 Security experts say that there are two types of companies in the
More informationYear in Review: Three Noteworthy Decisions of 2017 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
LITIGATION CLIENT ALERT JANUARY 2018 Year in Review: Three Noteworthy Decisions of 2017 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) governs
More informationIntellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims
Intellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims News from the State Bar of California Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section From the January 2018 E-Brief David
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationCRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY: PROTECTING DATA AND RIGHTS
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY: PROTECTING DATA AND RIGHTS JUNE 8, 2017 Bracewell LLP makes this information available for educational purposes. This information does not offer specific legal advice
More informationJune s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JUNE 22, 2016 SIDLEY UPDATE June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Southern
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PLAINTIFF, In His Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, FRANCISCO D SOUZA,
More informationIN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
E-FILED 2014 JAN 02 736 PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY BELLE OF SIOUX CITY, L.P., v. Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant MISSOURI RIVER HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT,
More information