Gibbons Law Alert
In Spring 2009, the Joint E-Discovery Subcommittee of The Association of The Bar of the City of New York issued a Manual for State Trial Courts Regarding Electronic Discovery Cost-Allocation, highlighting the different approaches taken by state and federal courts in New York. One key difference is how they approach cost shifting when it comes to the production of inaccessible ESI.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is seeking input from all interested stakeholders as it develops proposed revisions to three separate sets of regulations that govern site cleanups: the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (“ARRCS”) rules,which were drafted to implement the Site Remediation Reform Act; the regulations covering cleanups under the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”); and the rules for cleanups involving underground storage tanks. NJDEP’s call for public input represents an unusual opportunity to affect the agency’s plans as the proposals are being drafted. Three members of the Gibbons Environmental Team have already published a detailed analysis of important issues raised by NJDEP’s working drafts.
On November 16, 2010, the Appellate Division, in McGee v. Township of East Amwell, Dkt. No. A-1233-09T2, 2010 N.J. Super., held that emails among township officials and a former supervisor regarding an employee’s termination from employment are subject to the “advisory, consultative or deliberative” exemption to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act. Plaintiff Joan McGee had appealed the Government Records Council’s (GRC) final decision denying her request for reconsideration of the GRC’s decision that the emails were exempt from disclosure.
Institutional controls, regulatory limits on human activity at a site, go by many names. The Department of Defense uses the term “land use controls.” ASTM E2091-00 has elected to use the phase “activity and use limitations.” Traditional real estate lawyers often think in terms of “covenants” or “easements.” Here in New Jersey, the Site Remediation Program uses the term “Deed Notice,” while the Freshwater Wetlands Permit Program has adopted the term “Conservation Restriction or Easement,” N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.4. Whatever name they go by, institutional controls are intended to regulate human behavior and are used to supplement environmental remediation efforts by reducing the risk of unintended exposure to residual contamination. As a result, institutional controls are critical to the redevelopment of contaminated real estate and cost-effective clean-ups.
For the seventh year in a row, the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department exhibited at the International Council of Shopping Centers’ (“ICSC”) National Conference and Deal Making Idea Exchange in America’s Hall II at the Hilton New York earlier this month. The buzz at the show was optimistic this year, similar to the upbeat mood at the September PA/NJ/DE Idea Exchange in Philadelphia, with over 6,000 attendees and 340 exhibitors “deal making” throughout the Hilton New York and the Sheraton New York Towers & Hotel. Along with the six Gibbons attorneys, the show was also attended by shopping center owners, developers, managers, marketing specialists, investors, lenders, retailers, and other professionals.
In Re Acer America Corp. is the latest in a growing body of opinions authored by the Federal Circuit finding that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has abused its discretion in denying the transfer of a case to a more convenient venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit launched the opening salvo against the Eastern District’s unwillingness to transfer cases in its In re Volkswagen of America, Inc. opinion, and the Federal Circuit repeatedly has followed suit, granting writs of mandamus in favor of transfer in In re Nintendo Co., In re Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., In re Genentech, and In re TS Tech.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has just announced a new test under which an employer may be held liable for unlawful retaliation when taking action against an employee who misappropriates and uses confidential company documents against the employer in support of a discrimination claim. Those who believe that simplicity is a virtue will not have their minds changed by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, in which the Court, by a 5-2 majority, established a complex and confusing seven-part “balancing test” for determining whether an employee’s wrongful taking of company documents nevertheless constitutes “protected activity” under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (the “LAD”). Applying this test, the Court held that the plaintiff in Quinlan could have been terminated for the wrongful taking of documents, but should not have been terminated for her attorney’s use of one of the documents at a deposition.
A party has an obligation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to produce materials — including electronically stored information (“ESI”) — within their “care, custody or control.” Rule 34 of the Federal Rules construes this to mean either “the legal right” or “the actual ability” to obtain the materials; and New York courts have broadly interpreted this obligation to extend to documents and materials that a party has the “right, authority, or practical ability to obtain.” See In re NTL, Inc. Securities Litigation, 244 F.R.D. 179, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Lawyers for Civil Justice (“LCJ”) recently submitted a formal comment to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regarding problems related to the preservation of information in litigation. The comment, which can be found here, pleads for a change in the current approach to preservation of electronically stored information (“ESI”), in which preservation obligations are largely created by individual courts on an ad hoc basis. This approach, LCJ points out, creates heavy burdens on litigants: The cost of preservation is too high, the risk of spoliation sanctions is too great, and the impact of ancillary litigation proceedings on discovery disputes is too debilitating. Substantive issues in many cases have become overshadowed by issues of preservation.
On December 1, 2010, the latest version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. As part of the new rules, significant changes were made to Rule 26 regarding the discovery of information from experts retained to provide testimony. As of Wednesday, witnesses who were not previously required to provide a written report must now provide a summary disclosure of their opinion. In addition, draft expert reports and some communications between expert witnesses and counsel will no longer be discoverable, and expert reports will now only need to contain information regarding “facts or data considered by the witness in forming” an opinion.