Gibbons Law Alert
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) launched a new e-permitting program that will allow the public to apply on-line for certain coastal permits. The program is consistent with the Governor’s “Common Sense Principles” outlined in Executive Order No. 2 which focused on the need to reduce the high costs and regulatory burdens that are thought to impede growth and opportunity in the State of New Jersey.
Susanne Peticolas, a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, was the Dinner Speaker at the April meeting of the Institute for Supply Management – New Jersey, Inc. on April 13, 2011. She addressed the issue of greenwashing, unjustifiable product claims of being environmentally sensitive and strategies to help companies avoid the problem.
Amendments to the regulations implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 28 CFR 35.101 et seq., which applies to public entities, went into effect on March 15, 2011. A public entity is defined in the regulations as: “(1) Any state or local government; (2) Any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and (3) The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority (as defined in section 103(8) of the Rail Passenger Service Act).” See 28 CFR 35.104. On the same date, amendments to the regulations implementing Title III of the ADA, 28 CFR 36.101 et seq., which applies to public accommodations (including private businesses that fall within one of twelve categories established by the statute) and commercial facilities also went into effect.
When a party voluntarily dumps data on its adversary without first conducting a meaningful privilege review, that party may be deemed to have waived any applicable privileges, particularly where it fails to timely argue that a privilege review would be too costly. That is the lesson of In re Fontainebleau Las Vegas Contract Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4105 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2011), a cautionary tale of the dangers of data dumping. After repeatedly failing to meet court-ordered production deadlines, in response to a subpoena, Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC (“FBR”) essentially dumped on the requesting parties (the “Term Lenders”) three servers containing approximately 800 GB of data–without first conducting any meaningful privilege review. Consequently, in its January 7th decision, the court granted the Term Lenders’ motion seeking a declaration that FBR waived its privilege claims. Had FBR litigated this matter differently, it might have protected its privileged information.
One of the problems with electric cars (EVs) is – what do you do when the battery runs down? Currently there are 500 charging stations in the United States and 400 of them are in California. In an attempt to address the dead battery problem and encourage purchase of EVs, on March 21, 2011, the New Jersey State Senate introduced Bill S2784 (the “Bill”) which requires owners of shopping center developments to include charging stations. Under the Bill, owners of a “shopping center development” must equip not less than five (5%) percent of the parking spaces for the shopping center development with electric vehicle charging stations. Moreover, such stations must be available for use during the hours of operation of the shopping center development.
On May 18, 2011, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a trial court’s decision that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection had failed to establish sufficient “nexus” or connection between the operator of a dry cleaner and regional groundwater contamination. In New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Dimant, et al., (Docket A-3180-09T2), the Appellate Division soundly rejected New Jersey’s claim that “the Spill Act must be interpreted and applied very broadly to find that any discharge at any time, even a de minimis one, imposes liability on all operators handling that product, and that a direct causal connection between the discharge and the damages need not be established.” This sort of argument which asks the court to overlook critical connections is all too common in environmental cases. Indeed, governmental plaintiffs often invoke policy reasons when asking for relaxed nexus requirements whereas private parties seeking contribution frequently call on the courts to shift the burden to the alleged dischargers.
To echo a popular tag line frequently heard on Top 40 radio stations, when it comes to court-imposed sanctions for e-discovery failures, “the hits just keep on comin’!” According to a recent study published in the Duke Law Journal, sanctions for e-discovery violations are occurring more frequently than ever. Dan H. Willoughby, Jr., Rose Hunter Jones, Gregory R. Antine, Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By The Numbers, 60 Duke Law J. 789 (2010). However, there may be light at the end of the tunnel, as it appears that the frequency of sanctions awards is trending downward after hitting an all-time high in 2009.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) recently issued a Notice to the Bar advising that effective January 3, 2011, all employment discrimination cases, except cases filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, will be automatically referred for early mediation through the court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution program.
With the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament set to begin next week, employees everywhere will be filling out their tournament brackets. As “March Madness” sweeps the nation, employers face special challenges — particularly in maintaining a productive and efficient workforce at a time when distractions are abundant. In addition, employers should ensure that any tournament pools organized at the workplace are operated in accordance with the law.
Following a recent Federal Circuit decision, a patentee might now be able to assert a system claim against a single infringer for operating a distributed system, rather than naming joint infringers hosting portions of the distributed system. This is significant for entities that do business on-line, particularly enterprises with a cloud computing business model. Whereas in the past a patentee may have had to allege direct infringement among joint infringers (e.g., individual users, enterprises, and information technology system providers), and perhaps prove vicarious liability, now it may be possible to bring a direct infringement action against a sole infringer that might not be in possession of the complete system. E-commerce businesses, web-based providers of business services, providers of software as a service, electronic market makers, and other enterprises that use third-party server farms to host part, or all, of their system might now be named as the sole infringer. A patentee could perhaps now sue a competitor for infringement without having to sue the infringer’s IT provider. This could be particularly advantageous in cases where the patentee and the infringer share providers, and will permit the patentee to sue without jeopardizing its own business relationship with the provider.