Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Raising the Specter of Discovery Abuse: The Importance of Developing a Discovery Record Before Filing a Motion to Compel

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 27, 2020

Two recent decisions highlight the importance of establishing a record of discovery abuse before filing a motion to compel based upon the commonly held suspicion that a responding party is withholding information and/or has failed to adequately preserve or search for information. Even in situations where a party is convinced that an adversary has failed to produce discoverable information, a litigant will face an uphill climb in pursuing a motion to compel in the absence of concrete evidence as to an adversary’s discovery shortfalls, including evidence of data deletion, untimely or absent preservation efforts, and/or the failure to produce information produced by other parties or third-parties that clearly should be in the possession of the responding party. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative (E.D. Pa.) In a recent decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Schiller denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel in a case where plaintiffs insisted that “there simply must be responsive documents,” but plaintiffs were unable to provide any specific evidence to support their speculation. In this antitrust litigation involving allegations that defendants colluded to raise the price of fresh agarics mushrooms, plaintiffs sought all documents from defendants regarding the sale of mushrooms to plaintiffs. In particular, numerous discovery disputes ensued after the court entered an order requiring defendants to...

EEOC Updates “COVID-19 Technical Assistance Questions and Answers” with a Focus on Return-to-Work Guidance

by Susan L. Nardone

Posted in Disability

On July 23, 2020

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is continuing to offer COVID-19 related guidance to support employers and employees in navigating the workplace during the pandemic. As we discussed in a previous blog post, the EEOC updated its Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act guidance (first published in 2009) to specifically address the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the Pandemic Preparedness guidance, the EEOC has issued What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws, technical assistance guidance that contains numerous COVID-19 related questions and answers. Similar to the pandemic preparedness guidance, the technical assistance addresses employer’s obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically as they relate to accommodation requests and medical exams due to COVID-19, as well as other COVID-19 related workplace issues. The EEOC has continued to regularly update the technical assistance since its initial publication in March 2020, with the most recent updates in June 2020. The EEOC has explained that EEO laws like the ADA and Rehabilitation Act continue to apply during the COVID-19 pandemic, but do not interfere with or prevent employers from following guidelines and suggestions made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or state and local public health authorities concerning preventative...

Disappearing Act: Northern District of California Issues Rare Terminating Sanctions for Spoliation on a Massive Scale

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules / Technology Developments and Issues

On July 17, 2020

In WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang, the Northern District of California addressed an egregious case of discovery abuses and spoliation by defendants in a business litigation involving the alleged theft of autonomous vehicle technology. Applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(e), the court issued rare terminating sanctions against several defendants who willfully and intentionally deleted various forms of ESI, including relevant emails, status reports, and source code, well after the commencement of litigation and after a preservation order issued by the court requiring the preservation of such information. Defendants compounded these abuses by adopting the use of “DingTalk,” an ephemeral communication technology, after the court had issued the preservation order. WeRide, a technology company engaged in the business of developing autonomous cars, employed defendant Jing Wang as CEO in January 2018. WeRide alleged that Wang went on to form his own company, AllRide, as a direct competitor. WeRide also alleged that former employee defendant Kun Huang was recruited by Wang to work for AllRide while still employed by WeRide. WeRide alleged that Huang downloaded various forms of data during this time period and transferred this data onto several USB devices from two WeRide-issued computers, then proceeded to delete files from the devices. WeRide further alleged that AllRide and Huang stole WeRide’s source code,...

Supreme Court Severs TCPA’s Government Debt-Collection Exception as Content-Based Restriction on Free Speech, but Leaves Autodialer Restriction

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On July 16, 2020

The Supreme Court of the United States recently analyzed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., highlighting the importance of the Act’s ban on “robocalls,” (i.e., calls placed using an “automatic telephone dialing system” or “autodialer”), but leaving key questions unanswered. In Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., the Court upheld the TCPA but severed Congress’s 2015 amendment that allowed entities to make robocalls to collect government-backed debt. Enacted in 1991, the TCPA generally prohibits robocalls to cell phones and home phones. At the heart of the Court’s opinion here was the decision whether to uphold Congress’s 2015 amendment which allowed an exception to the general ban on robocalls for entities collecting government-backed debt. The plaintiffs, organizations that participate in the political system, make calls to citizens for a multitude of purposes, such as discussing political issues, soliciting donations, and conducting polls. If robocalls to cellphones were allowed for political outreach, the plaintiffs believe that their efforts would be more effective and efficient. The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action against the U.S. Attorney General and the Federal Communications Commission to invalidate the TCPA’s entire 1991 autodialer restriction, arguing that allowing certain entities to make robocalls to collect government-backed debt, but prohibiting other robocalls, was a content-based restriction...

DOJ and FTC Issue Final Vertical Merger Guidelines

by Kevin R. Reich

Posted in Antitrust

On July 13, 2020

On June 30, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized their much-anticipated Vertical Merger Guidelines. The new Guidelines, which were last updated in 1984, seek to increase transparency around the analytical techniques, practices, and enforcement policies that U.S. antitrust authorities use to regulate mergers between firms at different stages of the supply chain (e.g., a furniture maker that acquires a producer of timber). Vertical mergers generally raise fewer anticompetitive concerns than horizontal mergers between direct competitors. This, in part, is because consolidation along the supply chain tends to result in lower prices, as distributors and finished goods manufacturers can source inputs at cost rather than at the markup they would pay to a third-party supplier. But, as the Guidelines make clear, vertical mergers “are not invariably innocuous”: a merged firm could raise the price for – and even withhold – a necessary input from its rivals or exploit sensitive business information about rivals that it obtains as part of the merger. These so-called unilateral effects threaten harm to competition in the relevant market if rivals wind up abandoning the market, leaving consumers with higher prices and less innovation as a result. Per the Guidelines, DOJ and FTC evaluate the extent to which a vertical merger will raise rivals’ costs...

Technology-Assisted Review Is Not Compulsory, but Litigants’ Reluctance to Accept New E-Discovery Technologies Comes With Consequences

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in General Litigation

On July 9, 2020

A Special Master appointed to administer discovery disputes in In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation, pending in the District of New Jersey, rejected Plaintiffs’ application to compel Defendants to utilize technology assisted review (“TAR”) or predictive coding in connection with the parties’ negotiation of their search term protocol. While we have previously addressed courts that have “endorsed” the use of predictive coding and/or TAR and have recommended that litigants consider the use of such technologies to promote efficiency in the discovery process, courts will be extremely hesitant to impose affirmative requirements on litigants in carrying out discovery. TAR is a process “in which human reviewers and a computer engage in an interactive process to ‘train’ the computer how to identify responsive documents based on properties and characteristics beyond simple search terms.” Special Master Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J. (ret.) observed that courts have universally concluded that TAR is “cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching.” Nevertheless, the Special Master acknowledged that “responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for producing their own electronically stored information.” Thus, while courts have permitted parties to use TAR for document review, no court has compelled predictive coding over another party’s objection. The Special Master followed the approach of the few courts that have addressed...

Proposed “Safeguarding American Innovation Act” Would Target Foreign Influence in Research

by Estelle J. Tsevdos, Ph.D.

Posted in Intellectual Property

On July 8, 2020

A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators is sponsoring proposed legislation to stop China and other countries from allegedly stealing federally funded research and using the information to damage U.S. economic and national security. The bill was introduced on June 18, 2020 and is entitled the “Safeguarding American Innovation Act.” The proposed legislation was drafted and co-sponsored by Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and Senator Tom Camper (D-DE). It is currently supported by eight Republican Senators and five Democratic Senators. There is no counter legislation pending in the House of Representatives. According to Senator Portman, “We cannot continue to allow our global competitors to steal taxpayer-funded research and innovation in order to benefit their military and economy.” The legislation contains several key provisions of interest to U.S. Research Institutes and Organizations regarding: Disclosing Foreign Funding and Relationships: Key purposes of the legislation are to disclose foreign sources of support to academic institutions and to provide information about foreign relationships when applying for federal research grants. The proposed legislation not only provides a fine for not reporting foreign sources of funding, but for the first time, it also criminalizes not reporting the relationships when applying for federal research money grants. The criminal penalty proposed in the legislation consists of a term of up to five years. Expanding Funding...

Paragraph IV to Paragraph III Conversion Does Not Deprive a District Court of Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman Cases

by Charles H. Chevalier and Christine A. Gaddis

Posted in Patent / Pharmaceuticals

On July 7, 2020

In a significant Hatch-Waxman decision, a Delaware District Court recently denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), rejecting the argument that the conversion of the defendants’ Paragraph IV certifications to Paragraph III certifications deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, but granted the defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In H. Lundbeck A/S v. Apotex Inc., the defendants converted their Paragraph IV certifications for certain patents at issue to Paragraph III certifications. Under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii), an ANDA filer must make any one of four (I-IV) certifications for each Orange Book listed patent. A Paragraph IV certification is an ANDA filer’s statement that it intends to market its bioequivalent pharmaceutical product before the expiration of a patent listed as covering that product because the ANDA filer believes such patent is either not infringed or invalid. A Paragraph III certification is an ANDA filer’s statement that it will not market its bioequivalent product until after the expiration of a patent listed as covering that product. The Court reasoned that in a Hatch-Waxman action, subject matter jurisdiction exists when a patent owner alleges that the filing of an ANDA infringes its patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and conversion from a...

Permit Extension Act of 2020 Alters Timing for Applications for Development, and Extends Certain Existing Approvals During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

by Howard D. Geneslaw and Cameron W. MacLeod

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On July 7, 2020

On July 1, 2020, Governor Murphy signed the Permit Extension Act of 2020, enacted as P.L. 2020, c. 53, a stand-alone piece of legislation modifying timelines for review of applications for development before the land use boards of the State of New Jersey and tolling existing development approvals that have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 public health emergency. This legislation ends a saga that saw the proposal of an amendment to the Permit Extension Act of 2008, which was enacted following the Great Recession; a conditional veto of that legislation; and the concurrence of both houses of the New Jersey legislature with the language of the conditional veto message. This new law will provide significant help to developers throughout New Jersey who were forced, whether by governmental order or economic infeasibility, to put projects on hold during the course of the present public health emergency. However, there are potential pitfalls of which developers should be aware, as set forth below, including a requirement that all state-level permits that developers wish to have extended be registered. The Permit Extension Act of 2020 provides as follows: Scope: Much like the original Permit Extension Act, this law serves to extend a wide variety of permits, including, but not limited to, soil conservation district approvals, waterfront development permits,...

Claw It Back: Updated Protections of New Jersey Rule of Evidence 530 on Inadvertent Disclosure

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules / General Litigation

On July 6, 2020

On July 1, 2020, Amended New Jersey Rule of Evidence 530 (Waiver of Privilege by Contract or Previous Disclosure) became effective. N.J.R.E. 530, which tracks Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502, was amended as a result of the increasing use of electronic discovery in litigation and the associated concerns regarding the potential for the inadvertent disclosures. This blog has frequently addressed decisions involving F.R.E. 502, including in 2019, 2018, and 2012. Amended N.J.R.E. 530 includes significant revisions in paragraph(c), which includes provisions that apply “to disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.” N.J.R.E. 530(c). In particular, amended N.J.R.E. 530(c) addresses disclosures made during state proceedings or to state office or agency, N.J.R.E 530(c)(1); inadvertent disclosures, N.J.R.E. 530(c)(2); disclosures made in another forum’s proceeding, N.J.R.E. 530(c)(3); the controlling effect of a court’s order, N.J.R.E. 530(c)(4); and the controlling effect of a party agreement regarding disclosure, N.J.R.E. 530(c)(5). Under the amended Rule, it is clear that a court order regarding disclosure pursuant to N.J.R.E. 530(c)(4) has the potential to have a significant impact on other litigations, as the rule provides that a court order on privilege “is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.” However, an agreement “on the effect of disclosure in a state proceeding...