E-DISCOVERY UPDATE. October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "E-DISCOVERY UPDATE. October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery"

Transcription

1 OCTOBER 1, 2012 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Second Circuit decision rejected Judge Scheindlin s Pension Committee ruling on litigation hold notices and held that the failure to issue a written litigation hold was only one factor to be considered in determining whether discovery sanctions should be imposed; 2. A Pennsylvania federal court decision allowed cost shifting in the context of class certification where the class plaintiffs had requested extensive discovery; 3. A Ninth Circuit ruling upheld entry of a default judgment against a defendant for its multiple discovery failures; and 4. A Northern District of Illinois ruling sanctioned a defendant for providing inadequate testimony in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice by limiting the defendant s testimony at trial to the positions taken during the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and preventing the defendant from calling other witnesses on those issues. 1. In Chin v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012), the Second Circuit disagreed with Judge Scheindlin s ruling in Pension Committee that the failure to issue a written litigation hold constituted gross negligence warranting the issuance of an adverse inference instruction and held that it was only one factor to be considered in determining whether discovery sanctions should be imposed. The case involved 11 Asian Americans currently or formerly employed as police officers by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who brought suit alleging that they were not selected for promotion due to their race. A unanimous jury found in favor of seven of the plaintiffs awarding, inter alia, back pay and compensatory damages. The Port Authority appealed, arguing that evidence predating the statute of limitations should not have been admitted, that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury s verdict, and that the damages and relief were excessive and based on time-barred claims. The four non-prevailing plaintiffs cross-appealed, one of whom argued that the district court erred in failing to order an adverse inference instruction due to the Port Authority s destruction of promotion records. The Second Circuit held that the district court properly admitted evidence predating the limitations period and that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the Port Authority discriminated against the plaintiffs. The Second Circuit held, however, that the district court erred in permitting a pattern-or-practice disparate treatment theory in a non-class action and in considering harms predating the statute of limitations under the This Sidley update has been prepared by Sidley Austin LLP for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers. Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, and One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

2 Page 2 continuing violation doctrine. On this basis, the Second Circuit vacated the award of compensatory damages for all seven of the prevailing plaintiffs and vacated the back pay award made to four of the seven plaintiffs. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court with respect to the four non-prevailing cross-appellants. One of these cross-appellants, Howard Chin, argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion seeking an adverse inference instruction due to the Port Authority s destruction of documents relating to promotion decisions. The Port Authority did not dispute that it failed to preserve such documents even though it was under an obligation to do so. It admitted that it had failed to implement a document retention policy and that as a result 32 promotion folders used to make promotion decisions had been destroyed. The Second Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refraining from giving an adverse inference instruction to the jury. The Second Circuit disagreed with Judge Scheindlin s decision in Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs., LLC, 685 F.Supp.2d 456, (S.D.N.Y. 2010), that failure to issue a litigation hold amounted to gross negligence. Instead, the Second Circuit adopted the view that the better approach is to consider [the failure to adopt good preservation practices] as one factor in the determination of whether discovery sanctions should issue. Chin, 685 F.3d at 162 (quoting Orbit Comm ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 271 F.R.D. 429, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (brackets in original)). According to the Second Circuit, even if the Port Authority had been grossly negligent and the documents were relevant, such findings merely gave a district court the discretion to issue an adverse inference instruction. In this instance, the district court determined that the destroyed documents played a limited role in the promotion process, and there was ample evidence regarding the employees qualifications. Under these circumstances, the Second Circuit held, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that an adverse inference instruction was inappropriate. Id. 2. In Boeynaems v. LA Fitness International, LLC, 2012 WL (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2012), the Court held that cost shifting was appropriate in the context of class certification where the class plaintiffs requested extensive discovery, at least until the issue of class certification was resolved. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, LA Fitness International, LLC, engaged in deceptive practices that amounted to breach of contract relating to LA Fitness members seeking to cancel their membership agreements. To comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 s predominance requirement for class certification, plaintiffs issued several document requests. In response to plaintiffs latest discovery request for all member notes relating to customer complaints in five states over a 60-month period, s from custodians involved in the development, implementation, and oversight of the cancellation policy, and review of paper documents at an off-site facility, defendant responded that it had already reviewed thousands of s, over 500,000 member notes from five states over a 30 month period, over 1,000 boxes of cancellation requests, and conducted an electronic search of over 32,000 s of five custodians. Id. at *9-10. In light of the documents already produced and the scope of plaintiffs additional requests, the defendant argued that the additional search and production was unjustifiably burdensome estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Id. at *10. In a case of first impression as to whether cost shifting is appropriate prior to class certification, the Court held that where (1) class certification is pending, and (2) the plaintiffs have asked for very extensive discovery, compliance with which will be very expensive, that absent compelling equitable circumstances to the contrary, the plaintiffs should pay for the discovery they seek. Id. at *11. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that plaintiffs had already requested extensive discovery from the defendant, which the defendant had provided at its own expense. Plaintiffs had to meet the predominance requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and determine whether it had obtained sufficient discovery from defendant to make that showing. If plaintiffs were ultimately successful in achieving class certification, this case will suddenly turn from a routine case to a major financial exposure for Defendant. Id. at *12. As plaintiffs had already obtained significant discovery from the defendant at the defendant s expense, the Court believed it was

3 Page 3 appropriate to require the plaintiffs to bear the cost of any additional discovery and to decide whether such additional discovery was needed for their case: The Court is persuaded, it appearing that Defendant has borne all of the costs of complying with Plaintiffs' discovery to date, that the cost burdens must now shift to Plaintiffs, if Plaintiffs believe that they need additional discovery. In other words, given the large amount of information Defendant has already provided, Plaintiffs need to assess the value of additional discovery for their class action motion. If Plaintiffs conclude that additional discovery is not only relevant, but important to proving that a class should be certified, then Plaintiffs should pay for that additional discovery from this date forward, at least until the class action determination is made. Id. at *12. The Court ruled that plaintiffs should provide the defendant with a detailed listing of all additional documents that they were seeking, being as specific as possible with respect to searches for additional ESI and hard copy documents. Defendant would then have 14 days to respond, summarizing the costs of such production. Then within seven days, plaintiffs were to advise the defendant whether they were willing to incur this expense. If so, the payment had to be made prior to the commencement of production. Id. To assist the parties, the Court also provided guidance on the standards governing the resolution of the Rule 23 predominance issue, discussing both Third Circuit law and the Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct (2011). Boeynaems, 2011 WL at * In Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2012), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld entry of a default judgment against the defendant on account of its multiple discovery failures. This case arose out of the alleged failure of the defendant to pass on hazard pay bonuses to pilots and crew who delivered supplies for the United States Government during the Iraq and Afghanistan military conflicts. Id. at In January 2009, the plaintiff filed a class action on behalf of the pilots and crew on theories of unjust enrichment and conversion, seeking more than $21 million in hazard pay. Id. at The Class sought discovery from Vision requesting all communications and documents that relate to hazard pay. Id. At first, Vision denied having any such documents and, at a hearing on a motion to compel, asserted that there is no hazard pay, despite the existence of at least one invoice listing various line entries such as hazardous duty bonus. Id. At that time, the district court denied the motion to compel, but granted a 120-day extension for the parties to meet and confer further. Id. Vision ultimately turned over some documents to the plaintiffs, heavily redacted, without any privilege log. Id. The plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel, after which the district court ordered production. When Vision failed to comply, Hester filed a motion for sanctions. Id. At the hearing on the motion for sanctions, the district court issued an order for Vision to show cause why its Answer should not be stricken and a default entry ordered. In so ruling, the district court stated that Vision s conduct had interfered with the Court s ability to hear this case, delayed litigation, disrupted the Court s timely management of its docket, wasted judicial resources, and threatened the integrity of the Court s orders and the orderly administration of justice. Id. at 1167 (internal quotation omitted). Soon thereafter, Vision responded with a few of the requested documents. At the hearing on the show cause order, counsel for Vision asserted that he had produced to plaintiffs all documents provided by Vision. The district court warned Vision on the record that based on Vision s intentional discovery violations, the court ha[d] the authority to strike Vision s Answer and to enter a default judgment. Id. At one point during this hearing, the plaintiffs identified, as an example, a single document marked as page 20, for which Vision had failed to produce pages 1 through 19. Counsel for Vision admitted that he had recently found an unredacted version of that document, and the district court ordered him to produce the unredacted version of the full document to plaintiffs by day s end. Id. at Despite the district court s order, Vision failed to produce the

4 Page 4 document by the end of the day and instead produced a different document that had never previously been produced. Id. at On November 3, 2003, the district court ordered Vision s Answer stricken and default judgment entered. The district court ordered a jury trial on damages, and the jury returned a verdict of over $4.5 million, which with interest and costs led to entry of a judgment for over $5.2 million. The Court of Appeals applied the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district court s order imposing sanctions and stated that sanctions resulting in default were appropriate when the violations were due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party. Id. at 1169 (citations omitted). The Court of Appeals indicated that a court must consider five factors before striking a pleading or declaring a default judgment: (1) the public s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other party; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Id. (citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). In its only argument on appeal regarding the sanctions, Vision claimed that the district court had failed to consider less drastic sanctions. Id. Rejecting this claim, the Court of Appeals held that the district court thoroughly discussed less drastic sanctions, explicitly discussed possible alternatives, and warned Vision several times about the possibility of default. Hester, 687 F.3d at The fact that the district court did not implement a lesser sanction first was not dispositive, especially where, as here, the district court regarded lesser sanctions as pointless. Id. 4. In Aldridge v. Lake County Sheriff s Office, 2012 WL (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2012), Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox sanctioned the defendant Sheriff s Office for failing to provide adequate Rule 30(b)(6) testimony during discovery. The Magistrate Judge awarded plaintiff certain costs and attorneys fees, limited the defendant s testimony at trial to those positions its witnesses took during the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and prevented the defendant from calling other witnesses on those topics. This case involved sex discrimination claims against the Sheriff s Office. In March 2012, in response to plaintiff s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice specifying 13 separate topics, the defendant offered a single designee. Id. at *1. Because the designee s responses to deposition questions were deficient, the defendant later agreed to produce six more designees. Id. The plaintiff complained that these witness, too, were deficient, and therefore she was ultimately not able to obtain testimony on several topics. The Magistrate Judge noted that a Rule 30(b)(6) witness may testify vicariously for the corporation, as to its knowledge and perceptions. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). The corporation must make a conscientious good faith effort to designate a person with knowledge on the designated topics, and it has a duty to prepare those persons in order that they can answer fully, completely, unevasively, the questions posed by the discovering party. Id. at *4 (internal quotations and citations omitted). In this case, the Magistrate Judge found that, even after the poor performance by its original witness, the defendant still failed to ensure that its new designees were prepared for their specific topics, with a few exceptions. Id. The Magistrate Judge admitted, however, that it was difficult to determine conclusively which topics [were] partially covered, what has not been covered at all, and those topics that have simply not been explored to plaintiff s satisfaction. The Magistrate Judge noted that the Court s job is not to comb the over 500 pages of deposition transcripts to determine where plaintiff may be prejudiced. Id. at *5 (emphasis in original). Finding that the plaintiff had received some of the testimony she had requested in the deposition notice, the Magistrate Judge granted the plaintiff s motion in part, awarding costs and attorneys fees for the second round of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, but stopped short of barring the defendant s testimony outright. As the plaintiff had failed to support her motion with specific areas of prejudice, an outright bar of the defendant s testimony was not appropriate. Id.

5 Page 5 Instead, the Magistrate Judge ruled that the defendant would be limited to the answers provided by its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and would not be able to take a position at trial on those topics on which its witnesses did not provide testimony. Id. The defendant would also be prohibited from calling other witnesses at trial on those topics. Id. As summarized by the Magistrate Judge, [i]n other words, defendant is stuck with the record it has created (which we note, would appear to benefit plaintiff in several respects). Id. If you have any questions regarding this update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually work. The E-Discovery Task Force of Sidley Austin LLP The legal framework in litigation for addressing the explosion in electronic communications has been in flux for a number of years. Sidley Austin LLP has established an E-Discovery Task Force to stay abreast of and advise clients on this shifting legal landscape. An interdisciplinary group of more than 25 lawyers across all our domestic offices, the Task Force monitors and examines issues and developments in the law regarding electronic discovery. The Task Force works seamlessly with our firm s Litigators who regularly defend and prosecute all types of litigation matters in trial and appellate courts, federal and state agencies, arbitrations, and mediations throughout the country. The co-chairs of the E-Discovery Task Force are: Alan C. Geolot Colleen M. Kenney Joel M. Mitnick ageolot@sidley.com ckenney@sidley.com jmitnick@sidley.com To receive future copies of this and other Sidley updates via , please sign up at BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Sidley Austin LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership which operates at the firm s offices other than Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palo Alto, Dallas, London, Hong Kong, Houston, Singapore and Sydney, is affiliated with other partnerships, including Sidley Austin LLP, an Illinois limited liability partnership (Chicago); Sidley Austin (NY) LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership (New York); Sidley Austin (CA) LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palo Alto); Sidley Austin (TX) LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership (Dallas, Houston); Sidley Austin LLP, a separate Delaware limited liability partnership (London); Sidley Austin LLP, a separate Delaware limited liability partnership (Singapore); Sidley Austin, a New York general partnership (Hong Kong); Sidley Austin, a Delaware general partnership of registered foreign lawyers restricted to practicing foreign law (Sydney); and Sidley Austin Nishikawa Foreign Law Joint Enterprise (Tokyo). The affiliated partnerships are referred to herein collectively as Sidley Austin, Sidley, or the firm.

October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery OCTOBER 25, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:

More information

June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

June 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 information

October s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

October s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery OCTOBER 20, 2015 October 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 Sixth Circuit ruling

More information

February Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

February Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery FEBRUARY 7, 2012 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE February Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:

More information

September s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

September s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 September 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 District of

More information

June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery June 19, 2017 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 U.S. Supreme

More information

April s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

April s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery April 20, 2017 SIDLEY UPDATE April 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 wake-up

More information

December Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

December Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery DECEMBER 19, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE December Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:

More information

January s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

January s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery JANUARY 16, 2018 SIDLEY UPDATE January s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. Dec.

More information

December s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

December s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery DECEMBER 20, 2017 SIDLEY UPDATE December 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

More information

October s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

October s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery OCTOBER 18, 2017 October 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 Northern District

More information

Basic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact

Basic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact JUNE 23, 2014 SECURITIES LITIGATION UPDATE Basic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact The U.S. Supreme Court this morning, in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317

More information

Zubulake Judge Defines Discovery Duties and Spoliation Negligence Standards. January 29, 2010

Zubulake Judge Defines Discovery Duties and Spoliation Negligence Standards. January 29, 2010 Zubulake Judge Defines Discovery Duties and Spoliation Negligence Standards January 29, 2010 In an amended order subheaded Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin (SDNY), author

More information

A NEW BATTLEGROUND IN CLASS ACTIONS: THE COMMONALITY REQUIREMENT OF RULE 23(a)(2)*

A NEW BATTLEGROUND IN CLASS ACTIONS: THE COMMONALITY REQUIREMENT OF RULE 23(a)(2)* A NEW BATTLEGROUND IN CLASS ACTIONS: THE COMMONALITY REQUIREMENT OF RULE 23(a)(2)* BY JEFFREY E. CRANE The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes 1 has thrust the commonality requirement

More information

Document Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management Alert

Document Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management Alert February 2007 Authors: Carolyn M. Branthoover +1.412.355.5902 carolyn.branthoover@klgates.com Karen I. Marryshow +1.412.355.6379 karen.marryshow@klgates.com K&L Gates comprises approximately 1,400 lawyers

More information

Wal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions

Wal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions Wal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions Grace Speights Michael Burkhardt Paul Evans www.morganlewis.com Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, --- S. Ct. ---, 2011 WL 2437013 (June

More information

COMMENTARY. The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework. Case Background

COMMENTARY. 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 information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LOOPS, LLC AND LOOPS FLEXBRUSH LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PHOENIX TRADING, INC. (doing business as Amercare

More information

Patent Litigation and Licensing

Patent Litigation and Licensing Federal Circuit Rules on the Duty to Preserve Evidence SUMMARY On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued two opinions addressing the duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of commencing patent litigation.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case 1:11-cv-01299-HB-FM Document 206 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GENON MID-ATLANTIC, LLC and GENON CHALK POINT, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No. 11-Civ-1299

More information

Client Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782

Client 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 information

LITIGATION HOLDS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

LITIGATION HOLDS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Litigation Holds: Past, Present and Future Directions JDFSL V10N1 LITIGATION HOLDS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Milton Luoma Metropolitan State University St. Paul, Minnesota Vicki M. Luoma Minnesota

More information

Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It

Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It Janelle L. Davis Thompson & Knight LLP 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 969-1677 Janelle.Davis@tklaw.com

More information

Spence International Investments. LLC. eta/. v. the Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/2)

Spence International Investments. LLC. eta/. v. the Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/2) SIDELEYI SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 +1 202 736 8000 +1 202 736 8711 FAX BEIJING HONG KONG SAN FRANCISCO BOSTON HOUSTON SHANGHAI. BRUSSELS LONDON SINGAPORE CENTURY CITY

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV46 ) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & ) RICE, LLP, ) ) Defendant.

More information

IN 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 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 information

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions

More information

February 6, Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation

February 6, Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation February 6, 2013 Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Knowing Where You Are Litigating is Half the Battle: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument

More information

Case 5:00-cv FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6

Case 5:00-cv FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6 Case 5:00-cv-01081-FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION FILED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :0-cv-0-CBM-AJW Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS FLORES, ERICK NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ, and JUAN TRINIDAD, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT

More information

Employment Discrimination Litigation

Employment 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 information

Latham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements

Latham & 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 information

An Orbit Around Pension Committee

An Orbit Around Pension Committee An Orbit Around Pension Committee In this Issue Factual Background...1 Preservation Deconstructed...2 Defining Relevance...3 Application to the Facts...4 Key Takeaways...5 In the second issue of Seyfarth

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) RED BARN MOTORS, INC. et al v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC. et al Doc. 133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION RED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. COX ENTERPRISES,

More information

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Number 866 May 14, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department The Third Circuit Clarifies the Class Action Fairness Act s Local Controversy Exception to Federal Jurisdiction In addressing

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER -0 Mazzei v. Money Store UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY

More information

In , Judge Scheindlin almost single-handedly put e-discovery

In , Judge Scheindlin almost single-handedly put e-discovery Alvin F. Lindsay and Allison C. Stanton Judges rarely, if ever, title their opinions as an author would title a book. When Federal District Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York titles

More information

CALIFORNIA LITIGATION REPORT

CALIFORNIA LITIGATION REPORT SUMMER 2012 We are pleased to present the inaugural edition of the Sidley Austin LLP California Litigation Report a newsletter focusing on recent trends and events, and notable decisions affecting litigation

More information

Case 1:05-cv IMK-JSK Document 338 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Case 1:05-cv IMK-JSK Document 338 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Case 1:05-cv-00051-IMK-JSK Document 338 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ALLISON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. // Civil Action No.

More information

Latham & Watkins Finance Department

Latham & Watkins Finance Department Number 1147 February 17, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department The Settlement does not affirm or overturn Judge Peck s controversial decision in the US Litigation barring enforcement of

More information

The New ESI Sanctions Framework under the Proposed Rule 37(e) Amendments. By Philip Favro

The New ESI Sanctions Framework under the Proposed Rule 37(e) Amendments. By Philip Favro The New ESI Sanctions Framework under the Proposed Rule 37(e) Amendments By Philip Favro The debate over the necessity, substance, and form of the proposed ediscovery amendments to the Federal Rules of

More information

Case3:12-mc CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5. October 4, Chevron v. Donziger, 12-mc CRB (NC) Motion to Compel

Case3:12-mc CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5. October 4, Chevron v. Donziger, 12-mc CRB (NC) Motion to Compel Case3:12-mc-80237-CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5 555 CALIFORNIA STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE: +1.415.626.3939 FACSIMILE: +1.415.875.5700 VIA ECF United States District

More information

New York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements

New York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements New York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements April 26, 2010 New York s highest court recently decided a case of first impression

More information

FOUR TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK TEL: (212) FAX: (212) File No. S

FOUR TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK TEL: (212) FAX: (212) File No. S SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP DIRECT DIAL DIRECT FAX EMAIL ADDRESS FOUR TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK 10036-6522 TEL: (212) 735-3000 FAX: (212) 735-2000 www.skadden.com F'IRM/AFF"ILIATE OFFICES BOSTON

More information

Case: Document: 180 Page: 1 07/01/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, 2012

Case: Document: 180 Page: 1 07/01/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, 2012 Case: 12-3200 Document: 180 Page: 1 07/01/2013 979056 5 12-3200-cv Authors Guild Inc., et al. v. Google Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Argued On: May 8, 2013

More information

Preservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas

Preservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas APRIL 19, 2010 Preservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas By Jonathan Redgrave and Amanda Vaccaro In January, Judge Shira Scheindlin provided substantive

More information

Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability : The Implicit Requirement for Class Certification and its Evolving Application

Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability : The Implicit Requirement for Class Certification and its Evolving Application 26 August 2015 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Consumer Financial Services Class Action Defense Global Government Solutions Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00540-MOC-DSC LUANNA SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., )

More information

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Latham & Watkins Number 1467 February 13, 2013 Finance Department Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Josef S. Athanas, Caroline

More information

Adapting to a New Era of Strict Criminal Liability Enforcement under Pennsylvania s Environmental Laws

Adapting to a New Era of Strict Criminal Liability Enforcement under Pennsylvania s Environmental Laws October 11, 2013 Practice Groups: Oil and Gas Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Energy Adapting to a New Era of Strict Criminal Liability Enforcement under Pennsylvania s Environmental Laws By

More information

Case 5:15-cv HRL Document 88 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 5:15-cv HRL Document 88 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-hrl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of E-filed 0//0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 FIRST FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, LLC, Defendant.

More information

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes June 22, 2011 In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277 (June 20, 2011), the Supreme Court vacated the certification of the largest class action in history and issued

More information

Delaware Supreme Court Confirms Applicability of Issue Preclusion to Dismissals of Shareholder Derivative Actions for Failure to Plead Demand Futility

Delaware Supreme Court Confirms Applicability of Issue Preclusion to Dismissals of Shareholder Derivative Actions for Failure to Plead Demand Futility Delaware Supreme Court Confirms Applicability of Issue Preclusion to Dismissals of Shareholder Derivative Actions for Failure to Plead Demand Futility Court Rejects Chancery Court s Proposed Rule That

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 16-1392 Document: 49-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/15/2016 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNITED CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, INC., D/B/A BISON INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, Plaintiff-Appellee v.

More information

Spoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums

Spoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums Spoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums By Robin Shah (December 21, 2017, 5:07 PM EST) On Dec. 1, 2015, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) was amended with the intent of providing

More information

LEGAL SUPERHEROES: VOL 2. MAKING YOU A LEGAL SUPERHERO!

LEGAL SUPERHEROES: VOL 2. MAKING YOU A LEGAL SUPERHERO! LEGAL SUPERHEROES: VOL 2. MAKING YOU A LEGAL SUPERHERO! Session 7: 3:30-4:30 Presented by Sidley Austin Title: Antitrust Audits as part of a Gold Standard Compliance Program Speakers: Peter Huston, Partner,

More information

Substantial new amendments to the Federal

Substantial new amendments to the Federal The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: What Changed and How the Changes Might Affect Your Practice by Rachel A. Hedley, Giles M. Schanen, Jr. and Jennifer Jokerst 1 ARTICLE Substantial

More information

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS 2012 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS When Congress investigates, even the most sophisticated businesses feel as though they have fallen through the looking glass. The rules of

More information

Case 1:09-cv BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5. Plaintiff, : :

Case 1:09-cv BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5. Plaintiff, : : Case 109-cv-02672-BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- X CHRIS VAGENOS, Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES INC., D/B/A HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES (USA) Plaintiff, V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455 E. OLIVER CAPITAL GROUP,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: KKC MEMORANDUM ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: KKC MEMORANDUM ORDER Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-18-KKC AT ~ Q V LESLIE G Y cl 7b~FR CLERK u

More information

Litigation Hold Basics

Litigation Hold Basics We Power Life SM Litigation Hold Basics Allyson K. Howie Managing Counsel, Information Governance Entergy Legal Department October 12, 2017 The meaning of the word HOLD 2 Whatis a Litigation Hold? A legal

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * ALYSSA DANIELSON-HOLLAND; JAY HOLLAND, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 12, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

Consider Hearsay Issues Before A Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition

Consider Hearsay Issues Before A Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition 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 Consider Hearsay Issues Before A Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 5:00-CV Defendant/Counterclaimant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 5:00-CV Defendant/Counterclaimant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION The Regents of the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, The Board of Trustees of MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, and VETGEN, L.L.C., Plaintiffs,

More information

Supreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases

Supreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases Supreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases In Pair of Rulings, the Supreme Court Relaxes the Federal Circuit Standard for When District Courts May Award Fees in Patent Infringement

More information

Case 1:13-cv RML Document 53 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 778

Case 1:13-cv RML Document 53 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 778 Case 1:13-cv-02109-RML Document 53 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 778 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X LUIS PEREZ,

More information

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE 2015 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE In House Counsel Conference

PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE 2015 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE In House Counsel Conference 1 PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE 2015 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Kenneth L. Racowski Samantha L. Southall Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Philadelphia - Litigation Susan M. Roach Senior

More information

Delaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for Stock Corporations

Delaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for Stock Corporations 4 January 2017 Practice Group(s): Corporate/M&A Delaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for By Lisa R. Stark and Taylor B. Bartholomew In Solak v. Sarowitz, C.A. No. 12299-CB

More information

The Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving Fees

The Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving Fees To read the decision in Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., please click here. The Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION BRAY & GILLESPIE MANAGEMENT LLC, BRAY & GILLESPIE, DELAWARE I, L.P., BRAY & GILLESPIE X, LLC, et al. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION -vs- Case No. 6:07-cv-222-Orl-35KRS

More information

The Pension Committee Revisited One Year Later

The Pension Committee Revisited One Year Later The Pension Committee Revisited One Year Later Welcome and Introductions Brad Harris Vice President of Legal Products, Zapproved Numerous white papers, articles and presentations on legal hold best practices

More information

August 30, A. Introduction

August 30, A. Introduction August 30, 2013 The New Jersey Supreme Court Limits The Use Of Equitable Estoppel As A Basis To Compel Arbitration Of Claims Against A Person That Is Not A Signatory To An Arbitration Agreement A. Introduction

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 12-35217 01/09/2014 ID: 8930965 DktEntry: 29-1 Page: 1 of 6 (1 of 11) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 09 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

More information

Supreme 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 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 information

Case 6:10-cv LED Document 450 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13992

Case 6:10-cv LED Document 450 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13992 Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 450 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION VIRNETX INC., Plaintiff, vs. CISCO SYSTEMS,

More information

Law & Forensics E-Discovery, Forensics, Cyber Security, and Cyber Warfare TM

Law & Forensics E-Discovery, Forensics, Cyber Security, and Cyber Warfare TM Law & Forensics E-Discovery, Forensics, Cyber Security, and Cyber Warfare TM ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY IN LEAGUE SPORTS Determining the structure of legal relationships, fiduciary duty, and the famous cases

More information

Galvan v. Krueger International, Inc. et al Doc. 114

Galvan v. Krueger International, Inc. et al Doc. 114 Galvan v. Krueger International, Inc. et al Doc. 114 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOHN GALVAN, Plaintiff, v. No. 07 C 607 KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Wisconsin

More information

Client Alert. Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy

Client Alert. Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy Number 1438 December 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy Recent bankruptcy appellate rulings have

More information

Turning Legalese Into Tech Speak: Legal Holds in 2015

Turning Legalese Into Tech Speak: Legal Holds in 2015 Turning Legalese Into Tech Speak: Legal Holds in 2015 Meet the Panelists Moderator Karl Heisler Co-Chair of the Electronic Discovery and Information Governance Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Panelist

More information

United 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 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 information

Records & Information Management Best Practices for the 21st Century

Records & Information Management Best Practices for the 21st Century ATL ARMA RIM 101/201 Spring Seminar Records & Information Management Best Practices for the 21st Century May 6, 2015 Corporate Counsel Opposing Counsel Information Request Silver Bullet Litigation

More information

Case 2:06-cv JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiffs,

Case 2:06-cv JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiffs, Case 2:06-cv-01238-JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------X JEFFREY SCHAUB and HOWARD SCHAUB, as

More information

Background. 21 August Practice Group: Public Policy and Law. By Raymond P. Pepe

Background. 21 August Practice Group: Public Policy and Law. By Raymond P. Pepe 21 August 2014 Practice Group: Public Policy and Law Permanent Injunction of Pennsylvania s Prohibition against Establishment of Political Committees to Receive Contributions of Corporate and Labor Union

More information

on significant health issues pertaining to their products, and of encouraging the

on significant health issues pertaining to their products, and of encouraging the Number 836 March 17, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Wyeth v. Levine and the Contours of Conflict Preemption Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act The decision in Wyeth reinforces the importance

More information

American Capital Acquisitions v. Fortigent LLC

American Capital Acquisitions v. Fortigent LLC 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-11-2014 American Capital Acquisitions v. Fortigent LLC Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.

More information

FOR CODERS 102. Other Notes (if you have a note for ABF staff, write it below or on the back of this page) Very weak/flimsy case

FOR CODERS 102. Other Notes (if you have a note for ABF staff, write it below or on the back of this page) Very weak/flimsy case DOCKET # cv (2-3 letter city code) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROJECT CODING FORM 1. Case name: 2. a) Judicial division and district: NDIL NDCA EDPA SDNY NDTX NDGA EDLA b) Case location: Federal Records

More information

Lucia v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Officers of the United States

Lucia v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Officers of the United States Lucia v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Officers of the Court Rules That SEC s ALJs Were Improperly Appointed and Orders Reconsideration of Matters Before Them SUMMARY

More information

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Order Form (01/2005) Case: 1:10-cv-00761 Document #: 75 Filed: 01/27/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:951 United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Sharon

More information

Client Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background

Client Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background Number 1447 January 2, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice Steps taken by parties on the eve of filing for bankruptcy are likely

More information

Case 1:15-mc JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:15-mc JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10 Case 1:15-mc-00056-JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10 United States District Court Southern District of New York SUSANNE STONE MARSHALL, ET AL., Petitioners, -against- BERNARD L. MADOFF, ET AL.,

More information

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY ISSUES ZUBULAKE REVISITED: SIX YEARS LATER

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY ISSUES ZUBULAKE REVISITED: SIX YEARS LATER ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY ISSUES ZUBULAKE REVISITED: SIX YEARS LATER Introduction The seminal cases in the area of E-discovery are the Zubulake decisions, which were authored by Judge Shira Scheindlin of the

More information

Spoliation: New Law, New Dangers. ABA National Legal Malpractice Conference

Spoliation: New Law, New Dangers. ABA National Legal Malpractice Conference Spoliation: New Law, New Dangers ABA National Legal Malpractice Conference Speakers Ronald C. Minkoff Partner Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC New York, NY Heather K. Kelly Partner Gordon & Rees, LLP Denver,

More information

By Kevin M. Smith and John Gregory Robinson. Reprinted by permission of Connecticut Lawyer. 16 Connecticut Lawyer July 2011 Visit

By Kevin M. Smith and John Gregory Robinson. Reprinted by permission of Connecticut Lawyer. 16 Connecticut Lawyer July 2011 Visit By Kevin M. Smith and John Gregory Robinson Reprinted by permission of Connecticut Lawyer 16 Connecticut Lawyer July 2011 Visit www.ctbar.org Lawyers seeking guidance on electronic discovery will find

More information

Ninth Circuit Finds No Private Right of Action Under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Ninth Circuit Finds No Private Right of Action Under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act December 16, 2008 Ninth Circuit Finds No Private Right of Action Under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act On December 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision

More information

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. APPLIED TELEMATICS, INC. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. No. Civ.A Sept. 17, 1996.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. APPLIED TELEMATICS, INC. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. No. Civ.A Sept. 17, 1996. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. APPLIED TELEMATICS, INC. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. No. Civ.A. 94-4603. Sept. 17, 1996. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RUETER, Magistrate J. Presently

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL,

More information

LAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

LAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION Present: All the Justices LAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No. 992179 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY H.

More information

Case 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 23 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendant.

Case 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 23 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendant. Case 6:05-cv-06344-CJS-MWP Document 23 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SCOTT E. WOODWORTH and LYNN M. WOODWORTH, -vs- ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs,

More information