July Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
|
|
- David Garrison
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 JULY 16, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE July Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act s criminal prohibition on the alteration, destruction or falsification of a tangible object is limited to objects associated with the recording or preservation of information; 2. A Nebraska federal court order rejecting plaintiffs motion to show cause regarding defendants failure to produce documents, stating that discovery requires only reasonableness, not perfection; 3. An Eastern District of Virginia decision finding that plaintiffs had failed to produce relevant electronic social media in a timely manner but concluding that the amount plaintiffs spent on an e-discovery expert to collect and produce the media was proportional to the harm to defendants and thus a sufficient sanction under the circumstances; and 4. A New Jersey federal court decision granting plaintiffs motions to compel the production of metadata for certain of defendant s documents despite the existence of a discovery agreement not to require the production of metadata. 1. In Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct (U.S. Feb. 25, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act s criminal prohibition on the alteration, destruction or falsification of a tangible object is limited to objects associated with the recording or preservation of information. Captain John Yates operated a fishing boat off the coast of Florida. National Marine Fisheries Service agents boarded the boat and spotted undersized fish onboard. At Captain Yates direction, crew members threw overboard the undersized fish and replaced them with slightly larger (though still undersized) fish. Id. at Yates was charged with and convicted of violating Section 1519 of Title 18, which provides: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 18 U.S.C Sidley Austin provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, ; One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, ; and 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C ,
2 Page 2 During his trial, Yates moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that Section 1519 is a documents offense and that its reference to tangible object subsumed computer hard drives, logbooks, [and] things of that nature, not fish. Id. at 1080 (citation omitted). The Government countered that a tangible object is simply something other than a document or record. Id. (quoting Appendix). The trial court agreed with the Government and sentenced Yates to 30 days imprisonment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction because the ordinary meaning of tangible object is [h]aving or possessing physical form. Id. at (quoting U.S. v. Yates, 733 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2013)). The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit decision. Writing a plurality opinion joined by three other Justices, Justice Ginsburg stated that Section 1519 is better read to cover only objects one can use to record or preserve information, not all objects in the physical world. Id. at Though the plain and ordinary meaning of tangible object is broad, Justice Ginsburg looked to the surrounding context to derive its meaning. She noted that, as part of Sarbanes-Oxley, Section 1519 was intended to prohibit, in particular, corporate documentshredding to hide evidence of financial wrongdoing. Id. Justice Ginsburg cited Section 1519 s caption ( Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy ), the Sarbanes- Oxley section in which Section 1519 appears ( Criminal penalties for altering documents ), and Section 1519 s placement with other provisions relating to specific obstructive acts as support that Congress did not intend tangible evidence to refer to physical objects of every kind. Similarly, Justice Ginsberg noted that the inclusion of Section 1512(c)(1) and its prohibition on any act to destroy or conceal a record, document, or other object would be superfluous if Section 1519 applied to all tangible objects broadly defined. Id. at Justice Ginsberg also cited the principles of statutory construction noscitur a sociis ( a word is known by the company it keeps ) and ejusdem generis ( [w]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are [usually] construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words ) to conclude that the term tangible object is limited to the recording or preservation of information. Id. at (citations omitted). The plurality opinion also rejected the Government s claim that a 1962 version of the Model Penal Code with an early reference to record, document, or tangible object supported its position, noting that the cited Model Penal Code was a minor misdemeanor provision in which liability was limited to those with knowledge of a government investigation, limits that contrasted sharply with Section 1519 s provisions as a felony punishable by 20 years for impeding an investigation, including one that had not yet started. Id. at Justice Ginsburg concluded by stating that ambiguous provisions in criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity in a situation in which Section 1519 exposes individuals to 20-year prison sentences for tampering with any physical object that might have evidentiary value in any federal investigation into any offense, no matter whether the investigation is pending or merely contemplated, or whether the offense subject to investigation is criminal or civil. Id. at (emphasis in original). Justice Alito, in a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, noted that the surrounding terms indicated that the offense was directed at documentary offenses, and verbs like alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies or makes a false entry in simply make no sense outside of filekeeping. Id. at 1090 (Alito, J. concurring). In Justice Alito s view, the law was intended to target hard drives, computers and other devices that contain documentary evidence. Id.
3 Page 3 In a dissenting opinion joined by three Justices, Justice Kagan relied on the plain meaning of the statute to conclude that the statute swept more broadly. In my view, conventional tools of statutory construction all lead to a more conventional result: A tangible object is an object that s tangible. Id. at 1091 (Kagan, J., dissenting). The law, according to Justice Kagan, was intended to target the destruction of evidence. A fisherman, like John Yates, who dumps undersized fish to avoid a fine is no less blameworthy than one who shreds his vessel s catch log for the same reason. Congress thus treated both offenders in the same way. Id. at In Malone v. Kantner Ingredients, Inc., 2015 WL (D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2015), Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart rejected plaintiffs motion to show cause regarding defendants failure to produce documents, stating that discovery requires only reasonableness, not perfection. In a case with a litigious e-discovery process involving five separate plaintiffs motions to compel, plaintiffs had previously claimed that defendants failed to produce all responsive documents to plaintiffs requests, particularly sent s and invoices of transactions between one of the plaintiffs and a defendant. Responding to these claims, the Magistrate Judge had ordered defendants to locate their servers and determine if the server imaging performed at the outset of the case, before defendants initial review and production, was a full and complete imaging. Id. at *1. The Magistrate Judge had further ordered defendants to produce any invoices located on that server and responsive sent mail as well. Id. In response, defendants reviewed the servers and determined that the forensic image matched the data set used to conduct their manual review. Id. at *2. Defendants did not repeat their earlier search of the server data for documents responsive to plaintiffs original requests or provide the invoices and sent mail as set forth in the court order but instead had their forensic expert send a full copy of the imaged server to the plaintiffs. Id. Plaintiffs expert subsequently found that some documents on the imaged server that should have been produced previously had not been provided to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then moved to show cause, arguing that defendants violated the court s order by not repeating their search of the server data and by failing to produce responsive documents on a timely basis. Plaintiffs also sought an order requiring defendants to reimburse plaintiffs for the cost of their forensic expert. Id. at *1. Magistrate Judge Zwart denied plaintiffs motion to show cause, first noting that plaintiffs had misconstrued her prior order, which did not require defendants to repeat their Electronically Stored Information (ESI) search of the server image, but rather required defendants to confirm that the earlier imaging was full and complete, which they had done. Id. at *2. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Zwart found that defendants production of the full server image exceeded their obligations under the order, which required only production from that image of invoices and responsive sent s. Id. & n.4. Plaintiffs request that defendants reimburse their costs for their forensic expert s work was also rejected. Magistrate Judge Zwart noted that the parties could have avoided the undue costs of two experts if they had agreed at the case s outset on a process for the collection and production of ESI. Id. & n.5. As no such agreement was reached, the Magistrate Judge found it reasonable to require plaintiffs to pay their own expert s fees. Id. As to defendants earlier failure to produce responsive documents, Magistrate Judge Zwart found that defendants counsel and its paralegal did not provide misleading or untruthful information to the court and
4 Page 4 that errors in a manual review would occur where a server contained more than one million documents and s, of which over 200,000 electronic files and s were produced: At most, the plaintiffs offered evidence of mistakes made during defense counsel s 2012 manual review of the electronic files. Manual review is still considered by many as the gold standard for electronic document review. But human error is common when attorneys are tasked with personally reviewing voluminous electronically stored information. The fact that defense counsel may have made mistakes does not warrant imposing sanctions particularly where the plaintiffs now have full access to the server imaging. The discovery standard is, after all, reasonableness, not perfection. Id. at *3 & n.6. (footnotes, internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Magistrate Judge denied the motion to show cause, finding that the plaintiffs have presented no evidence, including through the testimony of their computer forensic expert, that Defendants, their counsel or their counsel s paralegal destroyed, hid or purposefully (or even recklessly) failed to produce responsive ESI. Id. at *3. 3. In Federico v. Lincoln Military Housing, LLC, 2014 WL (E.D. Va. Dec. 31, 2014), Magistrate Judge Douglas Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that plaintiffs had failed to produce relevant electronic social media on a timely basis but concluded that the amount plaintiffs spent on an e-discovery expert to collect and produce the media was proportional to the harm to defendants and thus a sufficient sanction under the circumstances. This case consolidated eight military families claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly arising from mold in military housing. Id. at *1. The discovery proceedings were contentious, produc[ing] 28 contested motions, including several motions for sanctions and reciprocal requests for costs and fees related to the parties alleged non-compliance. Id. But the most contentious disagreements involved defendants requests for plaintiffs electronic media, including text messages, and social media posts. Id. The Magistrate Judge noted that some of the Plaintiffs were very active users of and social media. Id. at *1. In January 2012, defense counsel sent a preservation letter to the first identified plaintiff, Shelley Federico, directing Ms. Federico to preserve and eventually produce electronic media. Id. Specifically, defense counsel s letter requested the preservation and production of (i) Internet and web browser history files, (ii) [p]otentially relevant texts and messages, (iii) [s]ocial media postings concerning their claims in the lawsuit and claimed damages, and (iv) [a]ny photo or video images of the subject properties. Id. However, Federico and the other plaintiffs produced almost no... electronic records in response to defense counsel s letter, and few additional s thereafter. Id. at *1-*2. In a subsequent emergency hearing, the Magistrate Judge warned plaintiffs that if they did not conduct a sufficient review and production of their files, he would consider imposing various sanctions, including the cost of having a professional engaged to produce the electronic media. Id. at *2-*3 (citation omitted). Nevertheless, plaintiffs still did not produce all of the requested electronic media. Id. at *3. Defendants moved for dismissal of plaintiffs claims and other appropriate sanctions for their failure to produce the electronic media. Id. Plaintiffs subsequently retained an e-discovery expert to collect and produce plaintiffs Facebook posts, spending $29,000 in the process. Id. at *4. Defendants were convinced, however, that
5 Page 5 discoverable material had been omitted and thus renewed their motion, asserting that sanctions were appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the court s inherent authority. Id. The Magistrate Judge explained that dismissal is the harshest sanction available in litigation, and thus is reserved for either severe misconduct or the loss of evidence central to their defense. Id. at *6. Indeed, where dismissal is ordered, it usually follows the intentional bad faith destruction of evidence which is central to the issues in dispute. Id. (citations omitted). In this case, however, Magistrate Judge Miller explained that no category of the electronic media sought was so central to the defense that its loss would deprive the Defendants of their ability to defend. Id. (citation omitted). In addition, defendants failed to establish that any Plaintiff deliberately destroyed evidence known to be relevant, or otherwise acted in bad faith. Id. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge found that while plaintiffs delayed production showed that they were either poorly instructed or deliberately dilatory, and that some sanction was appropriate, the ultimate sanction of dismissal was not warranted. Id. at *6-*7. The Magistrate Judge ultimately concluded that defendants $29,000 in costs incurred in retaining the e-discovery expert was a sufficient sanction under the circumstances. Id. at *7. In so concluding, the court analyzed defendants conduct under the proportionality mandate in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C), id. at *17, which provides that the burden of proposed discovery should reflect the likely benefit to the requesting party in obtaining it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). After considering that issue, the court determined that the plaintiffs had violated their discovery obligations, but the materials sought ended up being cumulative of other discovery and of marginal relevance, Federico, 2014 WL , at *7, and thus the $29,000 Plaintiffs already incurred to generate the additional material [was] a sufficient sanction. Id. at * In Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2015 WL (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2015), Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider granted plaintiffs motions to compel the production of metadata for certain of defendant s documents despite the existence of a discovery agreement not to require production of metadata. Plaintiffs were groups of defendant s franchisees who alleged that their franchises were targeted for termination due to their national origin, defendant s desire for additional franchise fees, and as retaliation for their criticism of defendant. Id. at *1-*2. Plaintiffs identified documents in defendant s productions involving the Project, Project P, Project Philadelphia, or the Operation that appeared to be related to their termination claims. These documents, however, lacked identifying metadata, including the dates created, authors and recipients, and the plaintiffs moved to compel the production of such metadata for specified documents. Magistrate Judge Schneider found that plaintiffs have had a difficult time obtaining 7-Eleven's documents : After first denying that Operation Philadelphia existed, 7-Eleven has slowly come around and has produced some documents related to Project P. Nevertheless, 7-Eleven has produced documents in dribs and drabs and even after months of discovery and numerous court conferences addressing discovery disputes, 7-Eleven acknowledges that not all relevant, requested and non-privileged Project P documents have been produced. Id. at *3. He also determined that, [t]o the extent it is necessary, plaintiffs have shown a particularized need for the requested data, concluding that the metadata was plainly relevant to their claims and necessary for authentication of defendant s documents. Id. at *4. The Magistrate Judge also found that plaintiffs efforts to
6 Page 6 obtain information about the requested documents through depositions and other discovery had been unsuccessful and noted that it was not insignificant that plaintiffs had requested the metadata for a relatively small number of documents 87 unique documents sought by two sets of plaintiffs. Id. at *3-*4. Because plaintiffs had shown a particularized need for the metadata, the burden shifted to defendant to show undue hardship or expense. Id. at *4 (quotation omitted). The defendant argued that the parties had agreed that metadata would not be produced, the documents had only minimal metadata, and production of such metadata would be unreasonably burdensome and expensive. Id. at *5. Magistrate Judge Schneider rejected defendant s arguments. Although the parties had agreed at the beginning of discovery that documents would be produced in.pdf format without metadata, the Magistrate Judge found good cause exists to modify the agreement.... Had plaintiffs known at the outset of the case the difficulties they would face in obtaining relevant information regarding 7-Eleven s documents, it is unlikely they would have agreed to forego requesting metadata. Id. at *5. Magistrate Judge Schneider emphasized that plaintiffs had undertaken substantial efforts to obtain key information about some of 7-Eleven s documents without success. [Plaintiffs] should not have to use their limited deposition time to question witnesses about basic issues such as when scores of documents were prepared, who prepared them, who received them, etc. Id. at *6. Finding that the requested metadata is unquestionably relevant to important issues in the case, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the defendant produce the available metadata relating to the documents in question. Id. at *6-*7. If you have any questions regarding this Sidley Update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually work. Sidley E-Discovery Task Force The legal framework in litigation for addressing the explosion in electronic communications has been in flux for a number of years. Sidley Austin LLP has established an E-Discovery Task Force to stay abreast of and advise clients on this shifting legal landscape. An inter-disciplinary group of more than 25 lawyers across all our domestic offices, the Task Force monitors and examines issues and developments in the law regarding electronic discovery. The Task Force works seamlessly with our firm s Litigators who regularly defend and prosecute all types of litigation matters in trial and appellate courts, federal and state agencies, arbitrations and mediations throughout the country. The co-chairs of the E-Discovery Task Force are: Alan C. Geolot ( , ageolot@sidley.com), Robert D. Keeling ( , rkeeling@sidley.com) and Colleen M. Kenney ( , ckenney@sidley.com). To receive Sidley Updates, please subscribe at BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS GENEVA HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Sidley Austin refers to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships as explained at
September Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE September Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationFebruary Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
FEBRUARY 12, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE February Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery The January 2015 Case Notes discuss the following: 1. A Nebraska federal court decision citing the proportionality
More informationApril Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
APRIL 16, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE April Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A
More informationAugust Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
AUGUST 15, 2014 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE August Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1.
More informationJune Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JUNE 16, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE June Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. An
More informationCalifornia Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Brinker Clarifying Employers Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks to Hourly Employees
APRIL 13, 2012 CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT & LABOR UPDATE California Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Brinker Clarifying Employers Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks to Hourly Employees In one of the most anticipated
More informationACCOUNTANTS LIABILITY UPDATE
JULY 14, 2010 ACCOUNTANTS LIABILITY UPDATE Accountants Liability Practice With highly skilled and experienced lawyers in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., we are able
More informationSupreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions
Supreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions The Supreme Court Holds That EEOC s Conciliation Efforts Are Subject to Judicial Review, Albeit Narrow SUMMARY A unanimous Supreme
More informationCase 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,
More informationFINRA and MSRB Issue Guidance on Best Execution Obligations in Equity, Options and Fixed Income Markets
DECEMBER 9, 2015 SIDLEY UPDATE FINRA and MSRB Issue Guidance on Best Execution Obligations in Equity, Options and Fixed Income Markets Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) and the Municipal
More informationSupreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations Applicable to False Claims Act Whistleblower Suits Against Government Contractors
Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations Applicable to False Claims Act Whistleblower Suits Against Government Contractors In Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel.
More informationFINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATORY UPDATE
OCTOBER 19, 2009 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATORY UPDATE The Financial Institutions Regulatory Practice Group of Sidley Austin LLP The Financial Institutions Regulatory Practice group offers counseling,
More informationgrouped into five different subject areas relating to: 1) planning for discovery and initial disclosures; 2)
ESI: Federal Court An introduction to the new federal rules governing discovery of electronically stored information In September 2005, the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously approved
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 12-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. DANIEL TIMOTHY MALONEY, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 12-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL TIMOTHY MALONEY, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
More informationSarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision
U.S. Supreme Court Significantly Expands Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision to Include Employees of Non-Public Contractors and Subcontractors of Public Companies SUMMARY In Lawson v. FMR LLC, No. 12-3
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
More informationCommittee on Judicial Ethics Teleconference Thursday, January 15, 2015
Committee on Judicial Ethics Teleconference Thursday, January 15, 2015 Members present via teleconference: Judge Christine E. Keller, Chair, Judge Barbara M. Quinn, Professor Sarah F. Russell, Judge Angela
More informationCase 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HONORABLE ROBERT
More informationPeter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices.
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices. ---------------------------------------x
More informationGLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationDefensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot
Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Contributed by Angie M. Hankins, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Many companies inadvertently mark their products with expired patents.
More informationDodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
Second Circuit, Disagreeing with Fifth Circuit, Defers to SEC s Interpretation of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Definition and Holds That Internal Whistleblowers Are Entitled to Pursue Dodd-Frank Retaliation
More informationDelaware Insurable Interest Law Developments
OCTOBER 12, 2011 Delaware Insurable Interest Law Developments INSURANCE UPDATE On September 20, 2011, the Delaware Supreme Court (the DE Supreme Court ) issued an opinion interpreting several provisions
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division IN RE: WILLIAM G. DADE ) Case No. 00-32487 ANN E. DADE ) Chapter 7 Debtors. ) ) ) DEBORAH R. JOHNSON ) Adversary
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 BENNETT HASELTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. C0-RSL FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:13-cv-00046-CCE-LPA Document 24 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL BILL
Franchise Tax Board ANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL BILL Author: Evans Analyst: Deborah Barrett Bill Number: AB 5 See Legislative Related Bills: History Telephone: 845-4301 Introduced Date: December 1, 2008 Attorney:
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 07-1281 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DAVID KAY and
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More informationSelf-reporting is getting complicated: Balancing FINRA's rule 4530 and the SEC's whistleblowing requirements
Self-reporting is getting complicated: Balancing FINRA's rule 4530 and the SEC's whistleblowing requirements Jun 30 2011 K. Susan Grafton recommended FINRA rule 4530 will take effect on July 1, 2011. The
More informationSupreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions. (a) Discovery Methods.
Supreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions (a) Discovery Methods. Information is obtainable as provided in these rules through any of the following discovery methods: depositions upon oral examination
More informationThe N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense
The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err
More informationWhat Happens When Litigation Starts? How Do You Get People Not To Generate the Bad Documents?
Document Retention and Destruction in Oregon What Happens When Litigation Starts? How Do You Get People Not To Generate the Bad Documents? Timothy W. Snider (503) 294-9557 twsnider@stoel.com Stoel Rives
More informationCase 1:15-cv-00009-JMS-MJD Document 29 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageid>
Case 1:15-cv-00009-JMS-MJD Document 29 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DARYL HILL, vs. Plaintiff, WHITE JACOBS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15-1328 NEAL D. SECREASE, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THE WESTERN & SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal
More informationEqual Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.: Religious Accommodation in the Workplace
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.: Supreme Court Clarifies that an Employer Can Be Liable for Failing To Accommodate a Religious Practice that the Employer Suspects,
More informationJanuary Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JANUARY 16, 2014 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE January Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationCase 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 JOHN and JOANNA ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-1731-T-33TBM
More informationE-DISCOVERY UPDATE. Notable E-Discovery Cases and Events
JULY 6, 2010 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE E-Discovery Task Force Update The legal framework in litigation for addressing the explosion in electronic communications has been in flux for a number of years. Sidley
More informationjurisdiction is DENIED and plaintiff s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. BACKGROUND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 TRICIA LECKLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Plaintiffs, CASHCALL, INC., Defendant. /
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS
CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS In a decision that will likely reduce the number of false marking cases, the Federal Circuit
More informationCorporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Corporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'
More informationCase 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 MARY SOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION Page 1 of
More informationDepartment, Board, Or Commission Author Bill Number
BILL ANALYSIS Department, Board, Or Commission Author Bill Number Franchise Tax Board Leno SB 467 SUBJECT Privacy/Electronic Communication/Warrants SUMMARY The bill would require the department to obtain
More informationv. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
More informationFILED December 8, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
More informationDEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
Case :0-cv-00-EHC Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DANIEL KNAUSS United States Attorney THEODORE C. HIRT Assistant Branch Director Civil Division, Federal Programs
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSCOE FRANKLIN CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-3359 v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL ASSURANCE COMPANY O Neill, J. November 9, 2004 MEMORANDUM
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U. No. 1-14-1179 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U THIRD DIVISION May 20, 2015 No. 1-14-1179 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationStewart violated Section 1001 by making a false statement on May 26, 2000, that she had not previously violated an alleged promise between May 16,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : v. : 02 CR 395 (JGK) : AHMED ABDEL SATTAR,
More informationChapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition)
Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018
More informationADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency administratively to assess civil penalties
More informationA&E Briefings. Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability. Structuring risk management solutions
A&E Briefings Structuring risk management solutions Spring 2012 Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability J. Kent Holland, J.D. ConstructionRisk, LLC Professional consultants are judged
More informationINVESTMENT FUNDS. SEC Proposes First Dodd-Frank Investment Advisers Act Rule to Address Family Offices. What Is a Family Office?
OCTOBER 22, 2010 INVESTMENT FUNDS SEC Proposes First Dodd-Frank Investment Advisers Act Rule to Address Family Offices Section 409(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the
More informationDrafting and Issuing Subpoenas: New Jersey
View the online version at http://us.practicallaw.com/6-569-5426 Drafting and Issuing Subpoenas: New Jersey EZRA ROSENBERG, MICHELLE HART YEARY AND THOMAS J. MILLER, DECHERT LLP, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION
More information2014 IL App (2d) 130390-U No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule
More informationCase 1:13-cr-00133-SS Document 79 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:13-cr-00133-SS Document 79 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. GREGORY P. BOYD, Defendant No.
More informationBeyond Credit Reporting: The Extension of Potential Class Action Liability to Employers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
April 7, 2014 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Labor, Employment and Workplace Safety Consumer Financial Services Beyond Credit Reporting: The Extension
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
Case: 15-12302 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
More informationPrivate Securities Fraud Claims Under Section 10(b) Based on False or Misleading Statements
Private Securities Fraud Claims Under Section 10(b) Based on False or Misleading Statements U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Private Actions May Be Brought Only Against Parties With Ultimate Authority Over
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
More informationThe trademark lawyer as brand manager
The trademark lawyer as brand manager This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Brands in the Boardroom 2005 May 2005 For further information please visit www.iam-magazine.com Feature The
More informationNo. 1-12-0762 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationCase 1:07-cv-01227 Document 37 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 37 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JACK and RENEE BEAM, Plaintiffs, No. 07 CV 1227 v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION In re: ) Chapter 7 Liquidation ) marchfirst, INC., et al., ) CASE NO. 01 B 24742 ) (Substantively Consolidated)
More informationAs used in this chapter, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following
Page 1 Massachusetts General Laws Annotated Currentness Part IV. Crimes, Punishments and Proceedings in Criminal Cases (Ch. 263-280) Title II. Proceedings in Criminal Cases (Ch. 275-280) Chapter 278A.
More informationBackground: November 26, 2013
November 26, 2013 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation; Consumer Financial Services; Commercial Disputes; Global Government Solutions For more news and developments related to
More informationCYBERCRIME LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
CYBERCRIME LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 121 STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications
More informationManaging Jones Act Personal Injury Litigation The Vessel Owner s Perspective. Lawrence R. DeMarcay, III
Managing Jones Act Personal Injury Litigation The Vessel Owner s Perspective by Lawrence R. DeMarcay, III Presented to the Offshore Marine Services Association / Loyola College of Law Industry Seminar
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2005 WI APP 99 Case No.: 2004AP1228 Complete Title of Case: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: LINDA HALKO, PETITIONER, STATE OF WISCONSIN, APPELLANT, V. LAWRENCE M.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA ORDER NO. 1682. Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA ORDER NO. 1682 Amending Civil Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45 concerning Discovery of Electronic Information IT IS ORDERED: 1. Civil Rule 16 is amended to read
More informationTHE INCREASING RISK OF SANCTIONS FOR ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE IN E-DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE
White Paper Series February 2006 THE INCREASING RISK OF SANCTIONS FOR ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE IN E-DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE The law is continuously carving out and redefining the boundaries of electronic document
More informationALERT. Consumer Protection and Unfair Competition Law
Consumer Protection and Unfair Competition Law LOEB & LOEB adds Knowledge. ALERT April 2010 Updated Summary of Proposed California Debt Settlement Act (AB 350) By Michael L. Mallow and Michael A. Thurman
More informationDefendant. Pending before the Court is a motion (Dkt. No. 167) by defendant
Case 1:08-cv-00623-RJA-JJM Document 170 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT a/s/o Sherry Demrick, v. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:14-cv-00873-JLK Document 60 Filed 07/20/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-00873-JLK DEBORAH CARTER, v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:04-cv-01053-HGB-DEK Document 190 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.
Case 2:04-cv-01053-HGB-DEK Document 190 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 04-1053 EDUCATION MANAGEMENT,
More informationDISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO. Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: JOHN GLEASON, in his official capacity as Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel vs.
More informationTop 10 Things We Hate to Hear During an Internal Investigation
Top 10 Things We Hate to Hear During an Internal Investigation June 19, 2015 Thomas J. Kenny Partner Kutak Rock LLP thomas.kenny@kutakrock.com 1. After we heard about the Compliance Hotline Report, we
More informationCase 3:12-cv-00165-LRH-VPC Document 50 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-00-lrh-vpc Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 GINA NELSON, Plaintiff, vs. NAV-RENO-GS, LLC, et al., Defendants. :-CV-0-LRH (VPC ORDER 0 This discovery
More informationVNSNY CORPORATE. DRA Policy
VNSNY CORPORATE DRA Policy TITLE: FEDERAL DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005: POLICY REGARDING THE DETECTION & PREVENTION OF FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE AND APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS APPLIES TO: VNSNY ENTITIES
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2013 (Submitted: March 20, 2014 Decided: July 25, 2014) Docket No.
Case: - Document: - Page: 0//0 Berger & Assocs. Attorneys, P.C. v. Kran 0 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Submitted: March 0, 0 Decided: July, 0) Docket No. In re
More informationNo. 2--07--1205 Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
More informationCase 2:11-cv-03684-ES-MAH Document 117 Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1757 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 211-cv-03684-ES-MAH Document 117 Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1757 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., v. Plaintiff, HUNT CONTROL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : :
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF, Successor-in-Interest to Plaintiff, vs. DEFENDANT, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Criminal Case No. 3:10-CR-00475-KI-1 OPINION AND ORDER MOHAMED OSMAN MOHAMUD, Defendant. S. Amanda
More informationhttps://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=1158fddba473599c44d5...
Page 1 of 8 20 Cal. App. 4th 256, *; 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 501, **; 1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 1169, ***; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8641 DALIA GHANOONI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUPER SHUTTLE OF LOS ANGELES et
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT RENE C. LEVARIO v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY
More informationInquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer
Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer This pamphlet provides general information relating to the purpose and procedures of the Florida lawyer discipline system. It should be read carefully and completely
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1-0000 1 RODNEY M. KIDD, vs. ORDER AND DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL UNDER RULE (c) 1 Defendant. 1 1 1 0 1 Before
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE APPLICATION OF THE : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO : Misc. No. 01-189 (Magistrate Judge Bredar) 18 U.S.C. 2703(d)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD
More informationColorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationTITLE I REDUCTION OF ABUSIVE LITIGATION
109 STAT. 737 Public Law 104 67 104th Congress An Act To reform Federal securities litigation, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
More informationOPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Opn. No. 2000-1
Page 1 of 6 Opn. No. 2000-1 US CONST, FOURTH AMEND; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 1.20, 140.10, 140.25, 140.30; PENAL LAW 10.00; 8 USC, CH 12, 1252c, 1253(c), 1254(a)(1), 1255a, 1324(a) and (c), 1325(b). New
More information