Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Show Some Respect: International Privacy and Comity Concerns May Become More Important in Foreign E-Discovery Disputes

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On March 1, 2012

Twenty-five years ago in Aerospatiale v. District Court of Iowa the United States Supreme Court admonished lower courts that international comity compels them to “take care to demonstrate due respect for any special problem confronted by the foreign litigant on account of its nationality or the location of its operations, and for any sovereign interest expressed by a foreign state.” And for the last twenty-five years, courts generally have not heeded that advice, giving short-shrift to the idea that foreign privacy or data protection laws must be enforced if the result is to limit discovery of relevant information. At the urging of lawyers and several influential organizations, that could finally be changing.

NJIPLA Annual Patent Litigation Seminar — Wednesday, March 14, 2012

by Robert E. Rudnick

Posted in Patent

On March 1, 2012

As President-Elect of the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association (NJIPLA), I am happy to announce that the NJIPLA will again host its well-received and well-attended “Annual Patent Litigation” seminar on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at the Woodbridge Hilton. This seminar is a half-day program starting at 11:45 am, and includes a meet and greet lunch. CLE credits for NJ (5.0) and NY/PA (4.5) will be awarded. The Woodbridge Hilton is easily accessible by car and a short walk from the Iselin train station, providing convenience for New York City and Philadelphia area attendees.

Protecting Your Company – Trademark Basics You Need to Know

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trademarks

On February 29, 2012

The Gibbons Women’s Initiative is hosting an upcoming program for in-house counsel entitled, “Protecting Your Company – Trademark Basics You Need to Know,” on Thursday, March 8 from 8:30 – 10:15 am at Gibbons Newark Office. This program will feature Catherine M. Clayton, a Director in the Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, who leads the firm’s trademark practice. Ms. Clayton has a broad range of experience in trademark and copyright law, and her practice encompasses litigation, licensing and prosecution.

Hard Drive of a Key Non-Party Witness is Searchable in Response to Subpoena

by Stephen J. Finley, Jr.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 28, 2012

A key non-party fact witness is fairly the target of a subpoena seeking production of ESI. In Wood v. Town of Warsaw, North Carolina, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held that ESI preserved on a former town manager’s personal computer must be made available for a search by a forensic expert in response to the Plaintiff’s subpoena.

The “Linsanity” Continues …..

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trademarks

On February 24, 2012

The New York Knicks’ rising superstar point guard, Jeremy Lin, continues to wow fans around the world. Lin’s NBA ascent also has prompted a rush to the Trademark Office. Over 20 applications for word marks that bear the letters L-I-N already have been filed. These include LIN-SATIONAL; ALL LIN; LINSPIRATION; I’M A LINNER; LINSOMNIA: LINCREDIBLE; and other derivations using the star’s last name. The frenzy began with applications for the seemingly ubiquitous LINSANITY catch phrase, which were filed on February 7 and February 9, as the star’s career took off. Most of the applications to date have been filed on an intent to use basis, that is, the applicant has expressed a bona fide intent to use the mark in interstate commerce.

Second Circuit Holds That Concepcion Preemption Analysis Does Not Apply to Federal Statutory Claims, Rejecting Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement Where Individual Plaintiffs Would Be Left Unable to Vindicate Their Rights

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On February 24, 2012

In In re: American Express Merchants’ Litigation (Feb. 1, 2012) (“AmEx III”), the Second Circuit refused to enforce American Express’s class action waiver where the “practical effect” would be to deprive plaintiffs of the ability to vindicate their federal statutory rights. By framing the issue in terms of the ability to vindicate federal statutory rights, the Second Circuit sidestepped the preemption analysis mandated by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. But whether AmEx III is ultimately reversed, or deemed to carve out an exception to Concepcion where federal statutory rights are at issue, it brings into sharp focus the real question on everyone’s mind: Can companies bar class actions in both courts and arbitral forums in favor of bilateral arbitration, and if so, how?

Still No Cure for the Malady of Jurors’ Social Media Use During Trials and Deliberations

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On February 24, 2012

Having recognized the challenges regarding jurors’ use of social media in the courtroom, the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management requested that the Federal Judicial Center (“FJC”) survey district court judges to identify effective mechanisms to curtail this growing problem. In response, the FJC queried 952 district judges and issued Jurors’ Use of Media During Trials and Deliberations, which demonstrates that despite the various strategies devised, it is virtually impossible to prevent jurors’ use of social media and is equally difficult to detect each and every impropriety. This issue is not novel; in fact, this blog has previously reported on instances where jurors’ use of social media had a significant impact on a proceeding as well as suggestions on how to avoid such pitfalls. Click here for those postings.

How a Case Can Crash and Burn: Why a Litigant Should Not Set Afire a Computer After It Crashes (Preservation 101)

by Robert D. Brown, Jr.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 22, 2012

In Evans v. Mobile County Health Department, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8530 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2012) , a magistrate judge sitting in the Southern District of Alabama (Southern Division) was recently faced with the question of whether plaintiff’s intentional burning of a personal computer, which contained discoverable ESI, was worthy of an imposition of sanctions.The defendant, Mobile County Health Department, filed motions to compel discovery and to impose sanctions stemming from plaintiff’s alleged spoliation of critical information and repeated failures to produce discoverable documents and ESI. Based upon the facts and arguments presented to the magistrate, most notably plaintiff Evans’ admission that she destroyed and replaced her personal computer, the Court granted defendant’s motions.

New York’s Appellate Courts Surface on Litigation Hold – First Department Confirms Reasonable Anticipation of Litigation Requires Implementation of Litigation Hold

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 21, 2012

New York’s First Department Appellate Division is the first New York state appellate court to expressly adopt the “reasonable anticipation trigger” articulated in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 FRD 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003): “Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.” Id. at 218. On January 31, 2012, the First Department affirmed the November 9, 2010 Order of the Honorable Richard B. Lowe III which awarded an adverse inference sanction to plaintiff, Voom HD Holdings LLC (“Voom”) against defendant EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. (“EchoStar”). Voom H.D. Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00658 (1st Dep’t 2012). The First Department found the Zubulake standard to be “harmonious” with existing New York precedent in the traditional discovery context and “provides litigants with sufficient certainty as to the nature of their obligations in the electronic discovery context and when those obligations are triggered.”

Lester v. Allied Part 2: “Clean Up” of Compromising Social Media Evidence Can Result in Severe Sanctions

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 21, 2012

Though some practitioners might be in denial, the follow-up sanctions orders in Lester v. Allied Concrete Co. et al. dated May 27, 2011 and September 23, 2011 should leave no room for doubt that preservation of social media is as important as any other electronic data or discovery. Similarly, the penalty for intentionally destroying such evidence may reach beyond the purse strings.