Litigation Alert: Recent E-Discovery Decision Impacts All Companies, Including Hedge Funds | FINalternatives

Judge Scheindlin’s Latest Ruling

E-discovery rules first coalesced during 2003 and 2004 in a series of rulings by Judge Scheindlin known as the Zubulake decisions (named after Laura Zubulake, a plaintiff in a gender-discrimination case).  Judge Scheindlin’s newest decision, Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, No. 05 Civ. 9016, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010), significantly alters the ground rules for preserving and storing electronically stored information relevant to an anticipated federal lawsuit.

In Montreal Pension Plan, aggrieved investors sued for $550 million after two British Virgin Island-based hedge funds in which they purchased shares entered receivership and were subsequently liquidated.  Several defendants discovered gaps in the plaintiffs’ document production, and upon that discovery seized the opportunity to go on the offensive against their accusers.  Depositions were taken as to plaintiffs’ information-retention efforts, sworn statements as to information preservation were procured, yet the court imposed sanctions even though intentional wrongdoing was absent.  The court, specifically noting that this was not a case of “egregious examples of … destroying evidence,” sternly warned that companies must preserve, collect, and review potentially-relevant information in a meaningfully-diligent way whenever litigation reasonably is anticipated.

Hindsight Reigns Supreme – Anything Lost, Even Innocently, May Result in Sanctions

What makes Judge Scheindlin’s decision relevant is that you now have an obligation to preserve electronic information as soon as litigation reasonably is anticipated, meaning that your preservation obligations can be triggered before the lawsuit is even started.  The court’s decision makes clear that your best efforts may not satisfy the court and that lost or destroyed information potentially relevant to a litigation could result in a finding of negligence.  Even unintentional negligence can result in a material sanction against your company.  To paraphrase the court, “a pure heart and an empty head” is no defense.

via Litigation Alert: Recent E-Discovery Decision Impacts All Companies, Including Hedge Funds | FINalternatives.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Wal-Mart in $86 million settlement of wage lawsuit | Reuters

OAKLAND, CA - JANUARY 08:  The Wal-Mart logo i...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Wal-Mart Stores Inc agreed to pay as much as $86 million to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing it of failing to pay vacation, overtime and other wages to thousands of former workers in California.

About 232,000 people will share in the settlement, which was disclosed on Tuesday in a federal court filing.

It requires a minimum payout of $43 million, and “far exceeds other recent settlements” involving Wal-Mart, the filing shows. The accord requires court approval.

Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter declined to comment.

The world’s largest retailer was accused in the original 2006 complaint of failing to pay a variety of wages to former workers as required under California law.

In agreeing to settle, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company did not concede that any wages remained unpaid, according to Tuesday’s filing.

via Wal-Mart in $86 million settlement of wage lawsuit | Reuters.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

5 things you should know about litigation vs. arbitration | Lexology.com

The London Court of International Arbitration
Image via Wikipedia

When deciding whether to agree to arbitration in your next automation contract, keep in mind the following differences between resolving disputes via the traditional litigation process versus arbitration:

  • Arbitration can be cheaper and faster. The general rule is that arbitration is a faster and more streamlined process, making it cheaper than the typical litigation process in most, but not all, cases.
  • Possibility of knowledgeable arbitrator. Because of the way an arbitrator is chosen, the parties can agree to an arbitrator who has specialized knowledge, which can be an advantage when technical issues are involved.
  • Very limited appeal rights in arbitration. The parties generally have to abide by an arbitrator’s decision, even if it is wrong. Cases that are litigated can be appealed and reversed.
  • Limited consolidation in arbitration. In a typical court case, all parties who may be involved in or contributed to a dispute can be compelled to join one lawsuit. In arbitration, parties cannot be made to join in someone else’s arbitration process unless they agree.
  • No jury in arbitration. There is no right to a jury trial in arbitration. Instead, disputes decided in arbitration will often be decided by one arbitrator

via Lexology – 5 things you should know about litigation vs. arbitration.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

‘Litigation prenup’ can help avoid nasty disputes |Wisconsin Law Journal

The concept of efficient litigation may seem a bit foreign to attorneys.

“It’s been the Holy Grail,” said Milwaukee lawyer Paul F. Heaton.

To that end, Heaton and others are embracing an evolving concept which attempts to curb litigation costs prior to trial.

An agreement in advance of a dispute, or “litigation prenup,” can set parameters for expensive elements involved in a trial such as dispositive motions or discovery.

“A lot of times attorneys do this in bits and pieces along the way, but why not take a comprehensive look at the front end,” said Heaton, of Gass Weber Mullins LLC. “Set some rules early in a lawsuit to get where you are going with less conflict and less expense.”

Boston attorney Daniel B. Winslow unveiled a model litigation prenup agreement at a Pepperdine University School of Law conference last month.

His case management format includes an underlying contract at the start of a business relationship which defines things like discovery limits and fee shifting.

The economical litigation agreement could be a “game-changer” for lawyers and business as it seeks to implement some proportionality and limitations on litigation.

“Right now you have an open-ended process,” said Winslow, of Proskauer Rose LLP. “This allows you to predetermine to the dollar what a particular case will cost, whether it’s billable hours or a fixed fee.”

via Wisconsin Law Journal – Article.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Lawyers Vie For Lead Roles in Toyota Suits | Orange County Business Journal

Mark Robinson of Newport Beach’s Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson Inc. and Wylie Aitken of Santa Ana’s Aitken Aitken Cohn are among those seeking to lead Toyota litigation being consolidated in Santa Ana.

Federal Judge James Selna on Thursday is expected to select a committee of lawyers to lead suits against Toyota’s U.S. arm in Torrance. He’s expected to pick from more than 100 lawyers vying for an expected five lead spots. More than a dozen other lawyers are set to be tapped for supporting roles.

“This is obviously going to be a very major case involving a tremendous amount of legal talent,” said Aitken, founder of Aitken Aitken Cohn.

At stake is a pot of money estimated at $200 million to $500 million in lawyers fees that would be split among the lead and supporting lawyers.

Robinson, senior partner at Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson, has applied to lead personal injury litigation against Toyota. He and other lawyers submitted their bids last month.

Judge Selna has “given criteria in his order and a lot of people have applied,” Robinson said. “We’ll see what happens.”

Aitken has applied to lead litigation related to the economic impact of Toyota’s recalls. Lawsuits there charge that Toyota vehicles lost value for owners and dealers after recall.

via Lawyers Vie For Lead Roles in Toyota Suits | Orange County Business Journal.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Google, Yahoo countersue Xerox on search patents | Reuters

Image representing YouTube as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBase

Google Inc, its YouTube video service, and Yahoo Inc on Thursday filed counterclaims against Xerox Corp in a lawsuit accusing them of infringing the document management company’s patents on Internet searches.

In filings in Delaware federal court on Thursday, the defendants sought declarations that they did not infringe the two patents at issue, or variantly that the patents are invalid and thus cannot be enforced by Xerox.

Xerox had sued Google, YouTube and Yahoo in February, claiming that Google services such as Google Maps, YouTube and AdSense advertising software, as well as Internet tools such as Yahoo Shopping, infringed two patents dating as far back as 2001.

According to a court filing, Xerox contended its patents covered such technology as a system for generating queries for information relating to a document, and methods to integrate information from documents and other data.

via Google, Yahoo countersue Xerox on search patents | Reuters.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

IRS, DOJ use social media sites to track deadbeats, criminal activity

Advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation has obtained documents showing how law enforcement agencies and the Internal Revenue Service are gathering information from social networking sites for their investigations.

The documents were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed last December by the EFF and the University of California, Berkeley’s Samuelson Clinic. The lawsuit was filed against six federal agencies and sought information on their use of social networking sites for data collection and surveillance purposes.

The agencies named in the lawsuit were the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The EFF this week obtained documents from two of those agencies — the IRS and the Justice Department — that show how the government is collecting information from social networking sites, as it has been suspected of doing for some time, said Shane Witnov, a law student and spokesman for the lawsuit at the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic. “The documents tell us clearly that the government is using social networking sites for undercover investigations,” Witnov said.

via IRS, DOJ use social media sites to track deadbeats, criminal activity.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Pennsylvania schools spying on students using laptop Webcams, claims lawsuit

A suburban Philadelphia school district remotely activates the cameras in school-provided laptops to spy on students in their homes, a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday alleged.

According to the lawsuit filed by a high school student and his parents, the Lower Merion School District of Ardmore, Pa. has spied on students and families by “indiscriminate use of and ability to remotely activate the Webcams incorporated into each laptop issued to students by the School District.”

Approximately 1,800 students at the district’s two high schools have been given laptops as part of a state- and federally-funded “one-to-one” student-to-laptop initiative.

Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of “improper behavior in his home” and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.

An assistant principal at Harriton later confirmed that the district could remotely activate the Webcam in students’ laptops. “Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through [Assistant Principal] Ms. Matsko, that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the Webcam contained in a student’s personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the Webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer,” the lawsuit stated.

via Pennsylvania schools spying on students using laptop Webcams, claims lawsuit.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

$2.2 Billion IP Suit Filed Against Computer Makers, Chinese Government

A family-owned firm in Santa Barbara, Calif., has filed a $2.2 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against the People's Republic of China, two Chinese software makers and seven major computer manufacturers that helped distribute Green Dam Youth Escort software.

Critics claim that the Chinese government used the software to block its citizens from accessing political and religious Web sites that the government deemed objectionable.

A lawyer for the plaintiff, Solid Oak Software Inc., called the lawsuit a test case for U.S. companies.

“Here you've got seven major computer manufacturers conspiring with the Chinese government and two software developers to take a program they all knew came from a U.S. company and integrate that into another program and then distribute tens of millions of copies of it,” said Gregory Fayer, an attorney at Los Angeles-based Gipson Hoffman & Pancione. “We think this is an important test case for enforcement of U.S. IP rights in U.S. courts against folks who are not respecting those rights in places other than the U.S.”

via $2.2 Billion IP Suit Filed Against Computer Makers, Chinese Government.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Lawsuit seeks information on federal surveillance of social networking sites

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the University of California, Berkeley's Samuelson Clinic have filed a lawsuit (PDF document) against six government agencies, seeking information on their use of social networking sites for data collection and surveillance.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It invoked the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in seeking information from the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, Central Intelligence Agency, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Shane Witnov, a law student at UC Berkeley School of Law's Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic said the lawsuit was prompted by the need for more transparency around the government's use of social networking sites for information gathering purposes.

“Social networking Web sites can be invaluable sources of information. There is a wealth of information on there that can be really useful in crime protection,” he said. At the same time, an unchecked ability to gather information from such sites could be invasive of privacy, he said.

The eight-page complaint lists several media reports about law enforcement's use of social sites for surveillance purposes. One of the reports includes an Associated Press story about police searching Facebook photos for evidence of underage drinking and watching YouTube videos to identify suspected rioters.

Another example cited in the compliant is a story in The New York Times about the FBI searching the house of s social worker because of Twitter messages he sent during the G-20 summit about police movements in the city.

via Lawsuit seeks information on federal surveillance of social networking sites.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare