Third-Party Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver Exceptions: Kovel, Common Interest and Functional Equivalent Doctrines
|
|
- Ezra Walters
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Third-Party Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver Exceptions: Kovel, Common Interest and Functional Equivalent Doctrines WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Donna L. Fisher, Partner, Pepper Hamilton, Harrisburg, Pa. Brian C. Spahn, Shareholder, Godfrey & Kahn, Milwaukee The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.
2 Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.
3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at ext. 35.
4 Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
5 Third Party Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver Exceptions: Kovel, Functional Equivalent and Common Interest Doctrines Donna L. Fisher, Esq. Pepper Hamilton LLP Brian C. Spahn, Esq. Godfrey & Kahn S.C. October 18, 2017
6 Table of Contents I. Overview Attorney-Client Privilege; Attorney Work-Product Doctrine; and Waiver II. III. IV. Exceptions to Third-Party Waivers Kovel Doctrine; Functional Equivalent Doctrine; Common Interest Doctrine Case Discussions Best Practices/Lessons Learned V. Q & A 6
7 Part I: Overview A. Attorney-Client Privilege B. Attorney Work-Product Doctrine C. Waiver 7
8 A. Attorney-Client Privilege Generally: - The person or entity asserting the privilege must be a client; - The person to whom the communication was made must be an attorney acting in that capacity at the time of the communication; - The communication must have been made by the client, not a third party; - The communication must be made in confidence; and - The communication must be for the purposes of obtaining legal advice or assistance in a legal proceeding. States, federal and foreign systems each have their own particular law on the attorney-client privilege (i.e., protection in one jurisdiction does not mean protection in another jurisdiction). 8
9 B. Attorney Work-Product Doctrine The work-product doctrine is a qualified immunity from the discovery of an attorney s written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections that are made in anticipation of litigation. The immunity is qualified in that it is subject to discovery by the opposing party upon a special showing of undue hardship or injustice. Attorney opinions made in anticipation of litigation are never subject to discovery. 9
10 C. Waiver The attorney-client privilege is waived when the communication is made in the presence of, or communicated to, a third party. The widely applied standard for determining the scope of a waiver of attorney-client privilege is that the waiver applies to all other communications relating to the same subject matter. Fort James Corp. v. Solo Cup Co., 412 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005). FRE 502(a) When the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding only if: 10
11 Waiver (cont d) 1) The waiver is intentional; 2) The disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and 3) They ought in fairness to be considered together. 11
12 Part II: Exceptions to Third-Party Waivers A. Kovel Doctrine B. Functional Equivalent Doctrine C. Common Interest Doctrine 12
13 A. Kovel Doctrine - United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2nd Cir. 1961) Accountants - Theme: serving as interpreters analogy that the accountant is facilitating communications between attorney and a non-english speaking client - Elements Communication between attorney and an accountant must be made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the lawyer. 296 F.2d at 922. Predominant purpose test. Distinguishing between legal work and accounting work. The presence of the accountant is necessary, or at least highly useful, for the effective consultation between the client and lawyer which the privilege is designed to permit. Id. 13
14 Application of Kovel Doctrine to Other Third- Party Consultants Communications with other third party consultants may still be privileged as long as the consulting service is rendered for legal rather than business advice. - Communications with the consultant must be kept confidential. - However, reports or statements made by or to the consultant without an attorney s direction or supervision are presumably made in the ordinary course of business and so are not privileged. Translation analogy still applies the consultant must be translating information or facilitating the communication between the lawyer and client so that the lawyer can render legal advice. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) and (C). - In federal courts, draft expert reports and certain attorneyexpert communications are protected as work-product. 14
15 B. Functional Equivalent Doctrine Protects communications between organizations and nonemployees who are the functional equivalent of employees. Factors that courts consider in applying the test: - Whether the consultant had primary responsibility for a key corporate job. - Whether there was a continuous and close working relationship between the consultant and the company s principals on issues interrelated with legal issues. - Whether the consultant is likely to possess information unique to anyone else at the company. 15
16 Functional Equivalent Doctrine (cont d) Courts disagree over the evidence necessary to meet the functional equivalence doctrine. Courts also disagree whether the functional equivalence test is in lieu of, or in addition to, the necessity test to determine whether the attorney client privilege protects these communications. See, e.g., Viacom, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. (In re Copper Mkt. Antitrust Litig.), 200 F.R.D. 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 16
17 C. Common Interest Doctrine AKA - Community of interest rule; Co-client privilege; Joint prosecution privilege; Joint defense privilege. The joint defense privilege was adopted as an exception to [the] waiver rule, under which communications between a client and his own lawyer remain protected by the attorneyclient privilege when disclosed to co-defendants or their counsel for purposes of a common defense. United States v. Stepney, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Courts now recognize the doctrine as also applying to parties in civil litigation. Generally speaking, the common interest doctrine applies when the parties 1) share a common interest; 2) the communication is confidential; 3) the communication is in furtherance of the common legal interest; and 4) the communication is related to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. 17
18 Common Interest Doctrine (cont d) Courts have applied the Common Interest Doctrine inconsistently. - Hard line test requires that the parties common interest is nearly identical. More flexible test requires that the parties common interest must be closely aligned. Jurisdictions also differ as to whether litigation is necessary to invoke the common interest doctrine or whether the doctrine also applies in the transaction context. 18
19 Part III: Case Discussion 19
20 United States v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2002) Defendant sought advice from Price Waterhouse on the structure of a transaction. Defendant s legal department discussed structure, purpose and tax consequences of transaction. Defendant, relying on Kovel, withheld documents exchanged as privileged. Magistrate judge distinguished between an accountant being hired merely to give additional legal advice about complying with the tax code from being hired to assist in understanding financial information. Recommended the court hold that Kovel only applied if the consultation with the third party was necessary to effectuate legal advice. 20
21 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Wachner, 198 F.R.D. 53 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) In anticipation of filing a lawsuit, plaintiff s counsel retained PR consultant for certain communications services in connection with the law firm s representation of plaintiff. At the time, PR firm was already working directly for plaintiff. Defendant sought communications between PR firm and plaintiff. After in camera review, Court held most of the correspondence was not protected by the attorney-client privilege: - Few were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. - PR firm was providing ordinary public relations advice. - PR firm was not performing functions materially different from those that any ordinary PR firm would have performed. Court distinguished between strategizing about the conduct of litigation from the effects of the litigation on customers, the media, or the public. 21
22 In re Copper Mkt. Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) Foreign corporation was embroiled in high profile scandal involving both regulatory and civil litigation aspects. Corporation had no experience with publicity issues in high profile cases. Further, only 2 of 3 executives in corporation s communications department spoke English and their language skills were not sufficient for media relations. Corporation hired PR firm to assist with media relations in connection with the scandal and litigation. PR firm conferred frequently with the corporation s U.S. litigation counsel and general counsel in preparing press releases and other materials which incorporated the lawyers advice. 22
23 In re Copper Mkt. Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (cont d) Court held that the PR firm was the functional equivalent of the corporation s employee. The Court rejected the argument that third party consultants came within the scope of the privilege only when acting as conduits or facilitators of attorney-client communications: - [I]n this case, RLM is the functional equivalent of a Sumitomo employee. Accordingly, the analysis set forth in Kovel and its progeny concerning whether the privilege applies to communications made to third parties for the purpose of facilitating attorney-client communications is inapposite. 200 F.R.D. at
24 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003, 265 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Target of grand jury investigation hired a PR firm to assist in influencing the outcome of the investigation. Government subpoenaed the PR firm to produce documents and to testify before the grand jury regarding communications with the target. PR firm asserted the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the target, arguing that the purpose of its public relations campaign was to counter unbalanced and inaccurate press reports about the target. Court upheld the assertion of privilege: - [T]he ability of lawyers to perform some of their most fundamental client functions would be undermined seriously if lawyers were not able to engage in frank discussion of facts and strategies with the lawyers public relations consultants. 265 F.Supp. 2d at
25 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003, 265 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (cont d) Court explicitly stated that target would not have enjoyed any privilege for her own communications with PR firm if she had hired firm directly. Court held communications between target and PR firm without the attorney may also be privileged but carved out two conversations between target and PR firm without law firm, determining neither were made for purpose of obtaining legal services. 25
26 Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev. LLC v. Cieslak, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. Nev. Aug. 13, 2015) Plaintiffs alleged that the PR firm and individual members of the Tribal Council conspired to conduct a public relations campaign to accuse plaintiffs of having breached their contracts with the Tribe. Alleged purpose of conspiracy was to gain support for the Tribe s enactment of an eminent domain ordinance and subsequent condemnation of plaintiffs contractual rights. The individual tribal members asserted affirmative defense that they had acted in good faith upon advice of counsel. Plaintiffs sought to depose Tribe s attorney relating to his communications with the PR firm. Tribe s law firm stated that as part of its representation of Tribe, it had recommended that the Tribe hire PR firm to manage media contacts relating to the litigation. 26
27 Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev. LLC v. Cieslak, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. Nev. Aug. 13, 2015) (cont d) Court upheld the assertion of privilege, holding that the PR firm should be treated as the functional equivalent of an employee of the Tribe. Court noted: - PR firm was hired by the Tribe, through its counsel, to protect the name of the Tribe and make it look more reasonable. - The law firm reviewed and approved agreement between Tribe and PR firm. - PR firm did not undertake to provide general PR services to the Tribe beyond the legal dispute with plaintiffs. 27
28 Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) Action involved violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action claims under the New York Minimum Wage Act. The defendant had reached out to its legal counsel for advice on the classification of apprentices. After counsel had provided legal advice on the classification question, defendant retained a human resources consultant to conduct a job function analysis. 94 F.Supp. 3d at 592. Defendant produced some of consultant s interview notes without asserting privilege objection. Results/conclusions of job function analysis were communicated in memorandum to counsel, which defendant withheld as privileged. 28
29 Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (cont d) Court held the attorney-client privilege did not protect the memorandum: - Report did not provide any specialized knowledge that the attorney could not have acquired or understood on his/her own. - None of the communications between HR consultant and employees were designated privileged. - Defendant s own HR team could have easily performed the analysis. - Legal counsel did not use the HR memorandum to render legal advice as the law firm s legal advice was provided before receiving HR memorandum. 29
30 BouSamra v. Excela Health, 2017 PA Super 235 (Pa. Super. 2017) Plaintiff and another physician held staff privileges at defendant s facility. During the course of a peer review, Defendant discovered that the physicians provided unnecessary treatments. Defendant hired outside counsel to advise it regarding disclosing physicians names. Outside counsel wrote an opinion letter. Defendant retained a public relations firm to advise it on potential public statements about the physicians and forwarded the legal analysis to the PR firm. After defendant publicly disclosed the physicians names, plaintiff sued. In discovery, plaintiff sought outside counsel s opinion and related s. 30
31 BouSamra v. Excela Health, 2017 PA Super 235 (Pa. Super. 2017) (cont d) Court held PR firm input was not required in order for outside counsel to provide legal advice: - PR firm not involved in the legal issue in question. - PR firm provided no input into that decision. - Outside counsel never communicated with PR firm. Court also held PR firm was not functional equivalent of an employee: - Defendant had a staffed PR department. - PR firm was hired for crisis management on discrete assignments. - PR firm controlled staffing and methodology of its projects. Court also held work-product privilege did not protect the legal opinion sent to the PR firm because the opinion was not sent to help outside counsel in preparing for litigation. 31
32 Behunin v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.App.5th 833, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 (App. 2d Dist. 2017) Lawsuit by plaintiff against the defendant family involving an unsuccessful business deal. To induce settlement, Behunin s attorney hired a PR firm to create a social media campaign to induce the Schwab family to settle. The Schwabs sued for defamation and invasion of privacy and requested information exchanged between Behunin, Behunin s attorney and the PR firm. Court held Behunin had not proven the communications were reasonably necessary for counsel s representation and determined the information was not privileged. 32
33 Endeavor Energy Res. v. Gatto & Reitz, No. 2:13CV542, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (W.D. Pa. 2017) Plaintiff filed a claim against defendant alleging improper distribution of funds held in escrow. In discovery, defendant sought deposition responses from, and documents provided to, a contract landman hired by plaintiff as an independent contractor. Court cited In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, 879 F. Supp. 2d 454, 460 (E.D. Pa. 2012)(citations omitted): - Extending the privilege to a consultant performing a role similar to that of an employee, to the same extent as it applies to a corporate employee, simply reflects the reality that corporations increasingly conduct their business not merely through regular employees but also through a variety of independent contractors retained for specific purposes U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48715, at *
34 Endeavor Energy Res. v. Gatto & Reitz, No. 2:13CV542, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (W.D. Pa. 2017) (cont d) Court held that the contract landman easily qualifies as the functional equivalent of an employee U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48715, * Interesting facts: - Landman testified he was not plaintiff s agent, that he considered himself a contractor. - Landman did not communicate directly with counsel but testified that he knew the information plaintiff was giving him had been discussed with counsel. - Court noted landman was routinely performing same type of work as plaintiff s employees. 34
35 Supreme Forest Products, Inc. et al. v. Kennedy et al, No. 3:16CV54, 2017 WL (D. Conn. Jan. 12, 2017) Company and two of its employees brought suit against two former employees for unlawfully tape recording conversations that the former employees used to bring workplace safety lawsuits against company. Two defendants were represented in the lawsuit by the same attorney who had brought the two separate workplace safety lawsuits previously. Defendants invoked attorney-client privilege relating to meetings and communications that they jointly participated in with their attorney during the prior lawsuit. Issue was whether the privilege applied to joint communications between defendants and their attorney before the current lawsuit was filed. 35
36 Supreme Forest Products, Inc. et al. v. Kennedy et al, No. 3:16CV54, 2017 WL (D. Conn. Jan. 12, 2017) (cont d) Court ruled that the fact that attorney filed separate lawsuits rather than joining both former employees did not dispel the application of the co-client privilege. Company argued that common interest privilege did not apply because defendants interest must be identical, not merely similar. Court distinguished between community of interest doctrine in which some courts have held that parties interests must be identical, and co-client privilege. Co-client privilege only requires common interest, not identical interest. 36
37 Supreme Forest Products, Inc. et al. v. Kennedy et al, No. 3:16CV54, 2017 WL (D. Conn. Jan. 12, 2017) (cont d) Court also rejected argument that lack of joint representation agreement destroyed privilege because the defendants course of dealing demonstrated a common interest. However, Court agreed with plaintiffs that underlying facts were not privileged and, therefore, to the extent that any facts or information were known to defendant without reference to privileged communications, they were discoverable. Communications between defendants outside the presence of counsel were also discoverable and not privileged. 37
38 Dresser-Rand Co. v. Schutte & Koerting Acquisition Co. 242 F. Supp. 3d 576 (S.D. Tex. 2017) Company sued competitor and two former employees alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. After filing lawsuit, plaintiff approached U.S. Attorney s Office in an attempt to have that office initiate a criminal prosecution of former employees. Plaintiffs voluntarily turned over a forensic expert s report to the federal prosecutors. Plaintiff then sought to withhold from discovery expert s report and correspondence with the prosecutors on the ground of the joint prosecution privilege. 38
39 Dresser-Rand Co. v. Schutte & Koerting Acquisition Co. 242 F. Supp. 3d 576 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (cont d) Court recognized that work-product privilege protects the work-product of consulting experts. Court also noted that the joint prosecution privilege has been found to exist in the context of False Claims Act litigation where it has been inferred that a common interest exists between a FCA relator and the Government in prosecuting such claims. However, relying in-part on the sword-shield doctrine whereby the privilege is waived when a party selectively presents certain materials to an adversary to prove a point, the court ruled that no common interest existed between the civil litigants and a potential criminal prosecution. Because plaintiffs made a calculated disclosure to further the government s inclination to prosecute they waived any privilege attached to the information voluntarily divulged to the government. 39
40 Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2015) Company sought to restructure and refinance eleven-billion Euro loan agreement with a consortium of banks. In doing so, Company retained Ernst & Young to advise on federal tax implications and possible future litigation with IRS. IRS audited the company and sought E&Y work-product. District court ruled that company waived attorney-client privilege by sharing E&Y analysis with the consortium of banks because the banks interest was commercial rather than legal. Second Circuit reversed. 40
41 Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2015) (cont d) Second Circuit held that the banks common interest with the company was of a sufficient legal character to prevent waiver by sharing communications. - [I]t is unnecessary that there be actual litigation in progress for the common interest rule of the attorney-client privilege to apply. 806 F.3d at The communications regarding tax opinions were made in the course of an ongoing common enterprise and intended to further the enterprise. Id. at 42. Parties may share a common interest even if they are not parties in ongoing litigation. 41
42 Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2015) (cont d) Second Circuit also ruled that work-product doctrine applied to E&Y tax advice memorandum because it was specifically aimed at addressing the urgent circumstances arising from the need for a refinancing and restructuring and was necessarily geared to an anticipated audit and subsequent litigation, which was on this record highly likely. Id. at
43 In re Santa Fe Int l Corp, 272 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2001) Companies in-house counsel shared opinion letter with each other regarding potential antitrust exposure years before antitrust litigation was filed. Fifth Circuit noted that there are two types of communications protected under the common interest doctrine (1) communications between co-defendants in actual litigation and their counsel; and (2) communications between potential co-defendants and their counsel. 272 F.3d at 710 (citations omitted). - Court noted that potential had not been clearly defined. 43
44 In re Santa Fe Int l Corp, 272 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2001) (cont d) Therefore, unlike the Second Circuit decision in Schaeffler, the Fifth Circuit held that because the privilege is an obstacle to truth seeking, it must be construed narrowly to effectuate necessary consultation between legal advisers and client. Id. There must be a palpable threat of litigation at the time of the communication before the communication between one possible future co-defendant and another can qualify as privileged. Here, the Court noted that documents were circulated for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the antitrust laws and minimizing risk. Documents were circulated in 1991 and the antitrust lawsuit was not filed until Therefore, Fifth Circuit affirmed ruling that litigation had not been anticipated at time of disclosure. 44
45 Obeid v. La Mack, 2016 WL (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2016) Plaintiffs regularly communicated with third-party investor about the lawsuit and its impact on the third-party s investment. Defendants sought communication between plaintiffs and third-party investor. Plaintiffs asserted common interest doctrine. Court held that communications were not for the purpose of developing a common legal strategy and, therefore, were not protected under the common interest privilege. 45
46 Obeid v. La Mack, 2016 WL (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2016) (cont d) It was not clear to the court that plaintiffs and investor had formed a coordinated legal strategy: More importantly, it does not seem plaintiff s communications with [the investor] were for the purpose of developing a common legal strategy. Although plaintiff claims to have sought [the investor s] opinion of and, in some cases, personal involvement in the litigation strategy, he sought it because [the third-party] is an investor with an interest in seeing that the case is successful. Moreover, plaintiff admits that his precise reason in generating the Disputed Documents was because the litigation materially affects [the investor s] financial interest WL at *8. 46
47 Part IV: Best Practices/Lessons Learned Determine the applicable law, to extent possible. When retaining consultants, either in-house or outside counsel should initiate the engagement. The engagement letter/agreement should make explicit that the consultant is being retained to assist counsel in providing legal advice. Counsel should emphasize at the outset of each consultant engagement that all communications and documents generated in the engagement should be considered confidential and only shared with individuals within the company who have a need for the information and never with a third-party without approval of counsel. 47
48 Best Practices/Lessons Learned (cont d) In-house or outside counsel and the consultant must regularly consult with each other about the engagement, and counsel should oversee the consultant s work. Simply retaining outside counsel to engage the consultant is probably not enough to ensure protection from subsequent discovery. Key meetings and communications should involve counsel. Counsel should be prepared to identify the specialized role that a consultant performed for the client and that that role involved working closely with the lawyers. (Consultant is the translator. ) 48
49 Best Practices/Lessons Learned (cont d) With respect to work-product, counsel must be mindful that only information prepared in anticipation of litigation will be protected. The anticipated litigation should be easily articulated. With respect to the common interest doctrine, make sure the common interest is easily articulated. The parties interests must be closely aligned and, in some jurisdictions, identical. Make sure that each communication is made in the course of, and for the purpose of, furthering the common interest. Entering into a joint defense agreement may help but, in the end, the parties course of conduct will drive the determination. Information should only be shared among the lawyers, not the clients 49
Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes Negotiating Exhaustion of Infringing Materials, Restrictions on Future Trademark
More informationDeposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Deposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses Preparing the Deposition Notice, Questioning the Corporate Representative, Raising and Defending Objections,
More informationDefending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A In House Counsel Depositions: Navigating Complex Legal and Ethical Issues Responding to Deposition Notices and Subpoenas and Protecting Privileged
More informationEvidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Evidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings Navigating the Discovery Minefield and Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege WEDNESDAY,
More informationDefeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims Evaluating Effectiveness of Strategy in Light of Differing Lower
More informationSummary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation Weighing the Risk of Showing Your Hand, Leveraging Discovery Tools and Timing,
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Legal Opinions for Article 9 Security Interests: Navigating the Complexities and Avoiding Liability Scope and Limitations, Interests of
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Satya Narayan, Attorney, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, Calif.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Nondisclosure Agreements for Information Technology Transactions Negotiating Key Provisions and Exclusions, Navigating Challenges for Information
More informationLeveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program
Presenting a live 60-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program Amending Identifications of Goods and Services in Trademark Registration TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15,
More informationDiscovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery
More informationMexico's New Anti-Corruption Laws and Implementing Regulations: Private Entities and Individuals in the Crosshairs
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Mexico's New Anti-Corruption Laws and Implementing Regulations: Private Entities and Individuals in the Crosshairs Key Provisions, Ensuring Compliance
More informationInsurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Insurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations Perspectives From Policyholder and Insurer
More informationDefeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2015 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Michael A. Brusca, Shareholder, Stark & Stark, Lawrenceville, N.J.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Personal Injury Opening Statements and Closing Arguments: Preparing and Delivering, Handling Objections and Related Motions Developing and Presenting
More informationStrategic Use of Joint Defense Agreements in Litigation: Avoiding Disqualification and Privilege Waivers
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Strategic Use of Joint Defense Agreements in Litigation: Avoiding Disqualification and Privilege Waivers Drafting Agreements That Minimize Risks
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies Disposing of or Limiting Claims,
More informationCurrent Ethics Issues Relating to Opinions:
Current Ethics Issues Relating to Opinions: The Attorney-Client Privilege, the Work-Product Protection, and Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 & 2.3 Presenters: John K. Villa & Charles Davant Williams &
More informationFRCP 45 Third-Party Subpoenas: Using or Objecting to Subpoenas to Obtain Testimony and Evidence
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A FRCP 45 Third-Party Subpoenas: Using or Objecting to Subpoenas to Obtain Testimony and Evidence TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
More informationRendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Rendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests Drafting Defensible Opinions and Minimizing
More informationPatent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced Damages
Presenting a 90-Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference with Email Q&A Patent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced
More informationManaging Patent Infringement Risk in Product Development
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Managing Patent Infringement Risk in Product Development THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s
More informationEnvironmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Environmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws Addressing Pre- vs. Post-Petition
More informationPRESERVING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION IN INTERNAL AND GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS. Chief Counsel, Investigations
PRESERVING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION IN INTERNAL AND GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS Eric J. Gorman Partner Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Lawrence Oliver,
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937
Case: 1:10-cv-02348 Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LORI WIGOD; DAN FINLINSON; and SANDRA
More informationExtraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationAMENDED RULE 26 EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
CONSTRUCTION H. JAMES WULFSBERG, ESQ. Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Fristman Professional Corporation DAVID J. HYNDMAN, ESQ. Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Fristman Professional Corporation navigant.com About Navigant
More informationChallenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions Leveraging the Appeals Process and Courts to Overcome ICANN Determinations Absent
More informationFCRA Class Actions in Employment on the Rise: Avoiding and Defending Claims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A FCRA Class Actions in Employment on the Rise: Avoiding and Defending Claims Drafting Policies and Procedures for FCRA Compliance, Leveraging Class
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Wilson Chu, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery, Dallas
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Negotiating and Navigating the Fraud Exception in Private Company Acquisitions Key Considerations For Drafting a Fraud Exception to an M&A Contractual
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 informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A E-Signatures and Electronic Loan Documentation in Real Estate Finance: ESIGN and UETA, Interplay With UCC Enforceability, Authentication and Admissibility;
More informationINVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS Wes Bearden, CEO Attorney & Licensed Investigator Bearden Investigative Agency, Inc. www.beardeninvestigations.com PRIVILEGE KEY POINTS WE ALL KNOW
More informationHIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A HIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery Safeguarding PHI and Avoiding Violations When Responding to Subpoenas and Discovery Requests THURSDAY,
More informationExpert Witnesses: Leveraging New Rule 26 Amendments Preserving Work Product Immunity for Expert Opinions and Reports
presents Expert Witnesses: Leveraging New Rule 26 Amendments Preserving Work Product Immunity for Expert Opinions and Reports A Live 60-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive ti Q&A Today's panel
More informationBreach of Employment Contract Litigation: Contract Interpretation, Materiality of Breach, Defenses, Damages
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Breach of Employment Contract Litigation: Contract Interpretation, Materiality of Breach, Defenses, Damages TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2017 1pm Eastern
More informationCase 3:16-cv JAM Document 50 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Case 3:16-cv-00054-JAM Document 50 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SUPREME FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL KENNEDY and FERRELL WELCH,
More informationE-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A E-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationLeveraging the AIA s Joinder Provision, Recent Decisions, and New Court Procedures in Defending Infringement Disputes
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A NPEs in Patent Litigation: i i Latest Developments Leveraging the AIA s Joinder Provision, Recent Decisions, and New Court Procedures in Defending
More informationManaging a Corporate Crisis:
Managing a Corporate Crisis: Strategies for Containing a Crisis and Controlling the Public Narrative While Meeting Ethical Obligations and Maintaining Privilege June 15, 2017 Vincent Cohen Hector Gonzalez
More informationPreparing the Lawyer to Be the Witness
Preparing the Lawyer to Be the Witness Presented by Sam Ramer (Counsel and VP, Government Relations, Symplicity Corporation), Leslie B. Kiernan (Partner, Akin Gump), Kristine L. Sendek-Smith (Partner,
More informationEffective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Effective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery
More informationPEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure
PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. tms@manningllp.com MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP Five Questions Five
More informationArticle III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Article III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends Strategies for Plaintiff and Defense Counsel to Pursue or Challenge
More informationCase 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 informationWhat Keeps You Up at Night?
What Keeps You Up at Night? Issues of Fraud and Abuse Compliance Series Keeping In House Out of the Doghouse Invoking the Attorney- Client Privilege 37 Offices in 18 Countries 2 Keeping In House Out of
More informationPrompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege
Prompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege by Monica L. Goebel and John B. Nickerson Workplace Harassment In order to avoid liability for workplace harassment, an employer must show that it exercised
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:08-cv-01159-JTM -DWB Document 923 Filed 12/22/10 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-1159-JTM
More informationThe attorney-client privilege
BY TIMOTHY J. MILLER AND ANDREW P. SHELBY TIMOTHY J. MILLER is partner and general counsel at Novack and Macey LLP. As co-chair of the firm s legal malpractice defense group, he represents law firms and
More informationPreparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
More informationProvisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Provisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System Assessing Whether to Use - and Strategies for Leveraging Provisional
More informationCase 6:09-cv GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714
Case 6:09-cv-01002-GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex. rel. and ELIN BAKLID-KUNZ,
More informationStandards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Standards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation WEDNESDAY,
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A In Pari Delicto Doctrine in Bankruptcy and Other Asset Recovery Litigation Anticipating or Raising the Defense in Claims Against Directors and Officers,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT
Case: 1:09-cv-03039 Document #: 94 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:953 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT SARA LEE CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationCase 8:12-cv JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:12-cv-00557-JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 BURTON W. WIAND, as Court-Appointed Receiver for Scoop Real Estate, L.P., et al. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
More informationCase 1:17-mc DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 20 but also DENIES Jones Day s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Applicants may
More informationQui Tam Actions: Guidance for Counsel for Managing Whistleblower Suits
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Qui Tam Actions: Guidance for Counsel for Managing Whistleblower Suits Navigating the False Claims Act, Government Interventions and Plaintiff/Defense
More informationPRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties
Presenting a 90 Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference/Webinar with Live, Interactive Q&A PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible
More informationWitness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Witness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23,
More informationPatent Licensing: Advanced Tactics
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics for Licensees Post-AIA Structuring Contractual Protections and Responding When Licensed Patents Are Challenged
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 informationNew Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A New Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:14-cv-01421-AGF Doc. #: 75 Filed: 06/23/15 Page: 1 of 15 PageID #: 574 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION KIRBY PEMBERTON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.
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 informationStructuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Nonbinding Legal Documents
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Structuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Nonbinding Legal Documents Avoiding Unintended Performance or Financial Obligations, Utilizing Express
More informationCrafting 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 informationCase 3:08-cv JA Document 103 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case :0-cv-0-JA Document 0 Filed 0//0 Page of 0 BETTY ANN MULLINS, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 0 Plaintiff v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants
More informationLaw Amendment and the FCPA Best Practices for Responding to a Chinese Government Commercial Bribery Investigation
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A New Chinese Anti Corruption Law Amendment and the FCPA Best Practices for THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2011 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More informationBest Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed
womblebonddickinson.com Best Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed Presentation to the Charlotte Chapter of the ACC November 1, 2017 Attorney Work Product United Phosphorus, Ltd.
More informationThird-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Third-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions Defining Scope, Limitations and Key Terms; Minimizing Liability Risks for Opinion Giver THURSDAY,
More informationStatistical Evidence in Employment Class Actions After Tyson Foods
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Statistical Evidence in Employment Class Actions After Tyson Foods Disputing or Leveraging Statistical Evidence in Complex Wage and Hour Litigation
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059
Case: 1:13-cv-01418 Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISLEWOOD CORPORATION, v. AT&T CORPORATION, AT&T
More informationPreparing Witnesses for Deposition: Overcoming Challenges With 30(b)(6) Representatives and Fact and Expert Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing Witnesses for Deposition: Overcoming Challenges With 30(b)(6) Representatives and Fact and Expert Witnesses Navigating Current Restrictions
More informationSolving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Solving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles Lessons From Recent Decisions for Timing in Superfund and Environmental Litigation
More informationDefending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing Witnesses THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2013 1pm
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 informationCase 2:16-cv CB Document 103 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-00538-CB Document 103 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LAMBETH MAGNETIC STRUCTURES, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
More informationAttorney Work-Product in the United States:
Attorney Work-Product in the United States: What Swiss lawyers need to know Jim Nickovich, Counsel (U.S. Attorney at Law), VISCHER AG BSW Online Marketing und Recht 1 U.S. doctrines matter to Swiss Counsel
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION THE JOHN ERNST LUCKEN REVOCABLE TRUST, and JOHN LUCKEN and MARY LUCKEN, Trustees, Plaintiffs, No. 16-CV-4005-MWB vs.
More informationTo Be or Not to Be In Severance Agreements
To Be or Not to Be In Severance Agreements Fourth Annual Employment Law Summit Prince William SHRM and Vanderpool Frostick & Nishanian PC October 2, 2015 Presented by: Kristina Keech Spitler, Esq. Copyright
More informationAnnual Advanced ALI-ABA Course of Study Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts
Annual Advanced ALI-ABA Course of Study Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts January 19-21, 2005 San Juan, Puerto Rico March 2-4, 2005 Maui, Hawaii An Update to A Comprehensive
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 informationLitigating Employment Discrimination
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Litigating Employment Discrimination Claims: Filing in State vs. Federal Court Evaluating Substantive and Procedural Advantages and Risks of Each
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761
Case: 1:13-cv-01524 Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIAN LUCAS, ARONZO DAVIS, and NORMAN GREEN, on
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-jad-gwf Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Jeffrey D. Gross (AZ Bar No. 00) Christopher W. Thompson (AZ Bar No. 0) GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 0- Telephone: (0)
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 informationStructuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Preliminary Agreements
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Structuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Preliminary Agreements Avoiding Unintended Performance or Financial Obligations and Limiting Drafting
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN RE: MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE ) SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION ) ) ) ) Case No. 07-MD-1840-KHV This Order Relates to All Cases ) ORDER Currently
More informationAppellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Appellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017 1pm Eastern
More information231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 1 Definition No. 5 provides that identify when used in regard to a communication includes providing the substance of the communication.
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 informationPeterson v. Bernardi. District of New Jersey Civil No RMB-JS (July 24, 2009)
Peterson v. Bernardi District of New Jersey Civil No. 07-2723-RMB-JS (July 24, 2009) Opinion And Order Joel Schneider, United States Magistrate Judge This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion
More informationThe 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Brief Reminder
ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Section Annual Conference April 18 20, 2012: Deposition Practice in Complex Cases: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly The to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 17-cv-00087 (CRC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION New York
More informationUnited States District Court
Case :-cv-00-wha Document Filed 0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 WAYMO LLC, v. Plaintiff, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. / INTRODUCTION
More informationLay Witness and Expert Witness Depositions in Personal Injury Cases: Advanced Deposition Techniques
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Lay Witness and Expert Witness Depositions in Personal Injury Cases: Advanced Deposition Techniques Leveraging Restatement, Summarization, Boxing-In
More informationJanuary 19, By Fax. The Honorable Paul A. Crotty Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007
Erik Haas Partner (212) 336-2117 Direct Fax (212) 336-2386 ehaas@pbwt.com By Fax The Honorable Paul A. Crotty Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 By Fax
More information