The National Law Forum

Department of State Releases September 2014 Visa Bulletin

The bulletin shows continued forward movement in the EB-2 India category while the cutoff dates in most other employment-based categories remain unchanged.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its September 2014 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent residents or to obtain approval of immigrant visas at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the September 2014 Visa Bulletin Say?

After several months of significant movement in both directions, the September Visa Bulletin shows no movement in any of the employment-based categories other than continued forward movement in the EB-2 India and EB-3 Philippines categories. Such continued forward movement in the EB-2 India category cannot be guaranteed; once significant demand in this category occurs, the cutoff date is likely to once again retrogress.

The cutoff date for F2A applicants from all countries will advance significantly in September.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories will remain current.

EB-2: The cutoff date of January 22, 2009 for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India will advance by slightly more than three months to May 1, 2009. The cutoff date of October 8, 2009 for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will remain unchanged. The EB-2 category for all other countries will remain current.

EB-3: The cutoff date of November 8, 2003 for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to India will remain unchanged. The cutoff date of November 1, 2008 for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will also remain unchanged. The cutoff date of June 1, 2010 for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines will advance by 10 months to April 1, 2011. The cutoff date of April 1, 2011 for applicants chargeable to Mexico and the Rest of the World will remain unchanged.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: November 1, 2008 (no movement)
India: November 8, 2003 (no movement)
Mexico: April 1, 2011 (no movement)
Philippines: April 1, 2011 (forward movement of 10 months)
Rest of the World: April 1, 2011 (no movement)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

The EB-2 category for applicants chargeable to all countries other than China and India has been current since November 2012. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to these categories. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to all countries other than China and India may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through September 2014.

China

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of October 8, 2009 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to China. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this cutoff date. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to October 8, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

India

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 22, 2009 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India. The September Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of May 1, 2009, reflecting forward movement of 99 days. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India with a priority date prior to May 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

The September Visa Bulletin notes that the use of potentially “otherwise unused” employment-based visa numbers prescribed by section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has allowed the cutoff date in the EB-2 India category to advance rapidly in recent months. The Visa Bulletin warns that continued forward movement of this cutoff date in upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the dates are formally announced. Once there is a significant increase in demand in this category, it will be necessary to retrogress the cutoff date, possibly as early as November, to hold numbers within the fiscal year 2015 annual limit.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of November 1, 2008 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to China. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this cutoff date. This means that only applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to November 1, 2008 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

India

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of November 8, 2003 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this cutoff date. This means that only EB-3 applicants chargeable to India with a priority date prior to November 8, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

Rest of the World

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of April 1, 2011 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to the Rest of the World. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this cutoff date. This means that only applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Rest of the World with a priority date prior to April 1, 2011 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of March 15, 2011 for F2A applicants from Mexico. The September Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of April 22, 2012, reflecting forward movement of 404 days. This means that applicants from Mexico with a priority date prior to April 22, 2012 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of May 1, 2012 for F2A applicants from all other countries. The September Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 1, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 245 days. This means that worldwide, F2A applicants with a priority date prior to January 1, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the September 2014 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website.

ARTICLE BY

Eric S. Bord

Lisa Stephanian
Burton

Tracy Evlogidis

Malcolm K. Goeschl

Eleanor Pelta

A. James Vázquez-Azpiri

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

New Jersey Suit Against School District Regarding Tweet Settles

As previously reported, in a March 2014 filing titled H.W. v. Sterling High School District, a New Jersey high school student filed suit claiming school officials had violated her constitutional rights when they punished her for content she posted on Twitter which criticized Sterling High School’s principal.

The settlement, which was approved by the Sterling High School District in April and entered by the Court on July 29, 2014, provides that the district will reimburse the student $9,000 for her legal fees. However, the district will not pay additional damages to the student. In addition, the school district agreed to revoke punishments imposed against the student for her Twitter postings, expunge documents related to the incident from the student’s academic record, and abandon its attempted requirements for drug testing of the student. Specifically, the agreement provides that the student is eligible for graduation upon completion of outstanding assignments, is allowed to attend the senior class trip to Florida, and if the student does not seek press coverage or disclose the settlement terms she will be allowed to participate in prom and the graduation ceremony.

Beyond agreements directly between the school district and the student, the settlement also calls of the school to modify its student handbook to specify that administrators “may be monitoring student discussions on Facebook, Twitter or other social media outlets and may seek to impose penalties in accordance with the student code of conduct if such discussions cause a substantial disruption at the school.”

ARTICLE BY

Jason C. Gavejian

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Patent Practitioners: Inventions and the Ecosystem of Ideas

There are some striking parallels between inventions and living organisms, and between technology in a consumer marketplace and an ecosystem. Insights gained through the comparisons may be beneficial to inventors, companies, consumers and the patent community. What are the connections? To review, living organisms exist in an ecosystem, and flourish or perish according to the laws of nature, with survival of the fittest. Variations among the organisms occur from generation to generation, and are positively or negatively selected over the passage of time and generations, as organisms evolve. This begets new species, which occupy environmental niches in the ecosystem, and also begets extinction in which species die off. Ideas, invention and technology exist in a sort of man-made ecosystem, with the consumer marketplace performing a selection process, the whole experiencing a type of guided evolution.

Human beings have ideas. We brainstorm them, communicate them to each other, and come up with more ideas. Humans invent, bringing some of these ideas to fruition. In turn, humans bring some of these ideas to actual products, which are then put up for sale and use in the consumer marketplace. This is a sort of test in the ecosystem, as to which products will survive. Consumers then make choices, purchasing the products they like, for various reasons. Products that are not purchased and used influence manufacturers to stop making those products. Products that are purchased and used influence manufacturers to continue making those products, and to develop next-generation variations of those products. New features are added to next-generation products, and some of these new features are popular, and some are not. The process of selection as to popularity, and sales volume, of products, is made by the consumers.

Next-generation variations of products are rather like offspring with mutations, in the comparison to living organisms in an ecosystem. A brand-new, never before seen product is rather like a new species that has suddenly emerged. Entire product types that become obsolete are rather like the dinosaurs that went extinct long ago. Even the term “dinosaur”, in colloquial usage, is synonymous with outdated technology (and is also sometimes applied to people who still prefer to use such outdated technology).

Ideas, invention, products and technology thus emerge, develop, thrive or perish, beget variations, and evolve over time in the consumer marketplace. The ever-present interest by, and purchasing power of, consumers drives the selection process that guides the evolution of products and technology. The ever-present ingenuity of inventors, and desire for companies to succeed in the marketplace, drives the production and mutation (variation) processes that guide the evolution of products and technology. The history of technology thus parallels the history of living organisms.

We patent practitioners are privileged to be chroniclers of inventions. A study through the body of published patent applications and issued patents illuminates the more recent history of invention and key aspects of technology. A study of the United States Patent Classification System, as developed and used by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, is rather like studying the taxonomy of living organisms.

How might we apply these insights? Consider a new product without a marketplace. Is such a product likely to survive? Perhaps a new marketplace will emerge for the new product, which could then dominate. How will other products compete with this new product? How will consumers decide whether to select and use, or deselect the new product? Consider competition against a product that is well-established in a marketplace. What new feature or new product could compel consumers to favor it? If some branch of technology is headed for obsolescence, why is this? If some new branch of technology is emerging, how might it fare, and why? And, for the patent practitioners in the audience, how might we best capture the innovative aspects and the inventions in our drawings, descriptions and claims on behalf of the inventors? This is all part of the art of patenting.

ARTICLE BY

Christopher M. Hall

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

Attend the Retail Law 2014 Conference – October 15-17, 2014, Charlotte, North Carolina

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Retail Law Conference:

Retail Law 2014: At the Intersection of Technology and Retail Law

When

October 15-17, 2014

Where

Charlotte, NC

The 2014 Retail Law Conference takes place October 15-17 in Charlotte, NC. This year’s program is stronger than ever with relevant, compelling and interactive sessions focused on the legal issues affecting retailers. In partnership with the Retail Litigation Center (RLC), RILA will host legal counsel from leaders in the retail industry for the fifth annual event.

This year’s Retail Law Conference will feature issues at the intersection of technology and law, how the two spaces interact and the impact that they have on retailers. Topics will likely include:

Anatomy of a Data Breach: Prevention & Response
Privacy: Understanding New Technologies & Data Collection
Advertising Practices: Enforcement & Social Media
ADA Implications for New Technologies
Legal Implications for Future Payment Technologies
Policies & Procedures of The “Omnichannel” Age
Patent Litigation “Heat Maps”
Union Organizing Campaigns
Wage & Hour Litigation
EEOC Enforcement
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Corporate Governance & Disclosure
Election 2014
Dueling Views of The U.S. Supreme Court
Legal Ethics

The Retail Law Conference is open to executives from retail and consumer goods product manufacturing companies. All others, such as law firms and service providres, must sponsor in order to attend, and can do so by contacting Tripp Taylor at tripp.taylor@rila.org.

SEC Brings Fraud Charges Against Oil and Gas Company and Its CEO

On August 4, the Securities and Exchange Commission instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against Houston American Energy Corp., an oil and gas exploration and production company, and John F. Terwilliger, its CEO, for making fraudulent claims about the company’s oil reserves. According to the SEC, during late 2009 and early 2010, Houston American raised approximately $13 million in a public offering and saw its stock price increase from less than $5 to more than $20 per share after fraudulently claiming that a Colombian exploration concession, in which Houston American owned a fractional interest, held between one billion and four billion barrels of oil reserves that would be worth the equivalent of $100 per share to investors. The SEC alleged that those estimates lacked any reasonable basis and were falsely attributed to the concession’s operator, who actually had much lower estimates. The SEC order charged Houston American and Mr. Terwilliger with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act); Rule 10b-5, Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act; and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The SEC seeks a civil penalty and disgorgement from Houston American, and to prohibit Mr. Terwilliger from acting as an officer and director of the company.

Matter of Houston American Energy Corp. et al, Admin. Proceeding No. 3-16000 (Aug. 4, 2014).

ARTICLE BY

Michael S. Gordon

Ashley H. Jones

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

NLRB General Counsel Authorizes Complaints Asserting Franchisor Can Be Jointly Liable With Its Franchisees

Earlier this week, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Richard F. Griffin, authorized the issuance of multiple complaints which include allegations that a franchisor, McDonald’s, USA, LLC, could be liable as ajoint employer with its franchisees for violations of theNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The text of the General Counsel’s authorization is available here.

Since 2012, McDonald’s, USA, LLC and its franchisees have been named in 181 unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB. In a memorandum issued to the Regional Directors, the General Counsel noted that 43 of those charges were found to have merit, while the remaining charges either were found to have no merit or are pending further investigation. The General Counsel’s action authorizes the regions in which the charges were filed to issue administrative complaints naming McDonald’s USA, LLC and its franchisees as respondents if the parties are unable to reach settlement in the 43 cases that have been found to have merit.

The authorization comes on the heels of an amicus brief filed by the General Counsel in June in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., urging the Board to adopt a new standard for determining joint-employer status. Under the current standard, the NLRB analyzes whether alleged joint employers share the ability to control or co-determine the essential terms and conditions of employment. TLI, Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984). Essential terms and conditions of employment include hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction of employees. Laerco Transportation, 269 NLRB 324 (1984). The putative joint employers’ control over these employment matters must be direct and immediate.

In the amicus brief, the General Counsel argued that the Board’s current standard for determining joint-employer status is significantly narrower than the traditional standard and ignores Congress’s intent that the term “employer” be construed broadly. Griffin urged the Board to adopt a new standard that accounts for the totality of the circumstances, including how putative joint employers structure their commercial dealings. Under the proposed test, joint-employer status would exist if one of the entities wields sufficient influence over the working conditions of the other entity’s employees such that meaningful bargaining could not occur in its absence.

The NLRB has not yet decided whether to adopt the General Counsel’s proposed standard, and the Browning-Ferris case is currently pending before the Board.

Implications and Recommendations

Although the General Counsel’s action has sparked a flurry of debate over the proper test for determining joint-employer status, it remains unclear whether the NLRB will accept his position. If the NLRB decides to adopt a new joint-employer standard, it would likely expand the number of entities found to be joint employers and thus potentially liable for alleged unfair labor practices, and could have ramifications under other employment laws as well, including wage and hour and discrimination cases.

ARTICLE BY

Alexis Dominguez

Schiff Hardin LLP

E-Verify Update and Improvements

E-Verify has been operational since 1997 as part of a Basic Pilot Program to assist employers to verify electronically that a newly hired employee is authorized to work in the US. A number of states have made use of E-Verify mandatory, including North Carolina which requires that employers with 25 employees to have been enrolled in E-Verify by July 1, 2013.

Update

Currently there are over 530,000 employers nationwide enrolled in E-Verify. Statistically, the program has grown rapidly as has its accuracy, having verified close to 24 million cases. Of those, 98.81% have been confirmed as employment authorized. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) graphic below provides E-Verify’s latest statistics:

E-verify

The Monitoring and Compliance Branch (M&C Branch) was created by the USCIS in 2009 to ensure E-Verify is being used properly. Its main function is to monitor and guide E-Verify participants by phone, email, desk reviews and site visits. This unit does not fine employers, but does refer cases of suspected misuse, abuse or fraud to Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC). There has been an uptick in complaints to the OSC resulting in some sizeable settlements. All settlement agreements described on the OSC website have one thing in common: all employers participated in E-Verify and the OSC became involved, for the most part, by the USCIS referring the employer to OSC. Thus, it is noteworthy that participation in E-Verify alone does not protect an employer from enforcement action and penalties.

Recent Improvements to E-Verify System

E-Verify has announced some needed improvements to its system to assist employers who, in doing so, will hopefully not attract M&C Branch attention:

Duplicate Case alert now notifies the employer if a social security number matches any other social security number entered for an existing case with the past 30 days.
The user’s name no longer auto-fills: it must now be completed each time to ensure accuracy, providing a prompt to validate or update email and phone number whenever the user’s password expires, which is every 90 days.
An employee whose information is entered in E-Verify resulting in a tentative nonconfirmation will receive email notification if they provide their email address on the Form I-9.
There is a new photo tool that will display any photo on record with E-Verify, enabling the user to compare it to the photo ID being presented.
E-Verify now verifies a driver’s license as to authenticity by matching the data entered by the user against participating state motor vehicle department records. Currently, North Carolina does not participate in this so-called RIDE system.
If E-Verify detects fraudulent use of a social security number, it prevents that number from being used more than once.
Notices generated by E-Verify are now available in 18 languages.
There are monthly webinars in Spanish for employers.
E-Verify screens for typographical errors and requires employers to correct them.
The Further Action Notice that is generated after a Tentative Nonconfirmation from the Department of Homeland Security includes instructions on how to correct immigration records after resolving the Tentative Nonconfirmation on E-Verify.
Updated Further Action Notices are also no longer pre-populated, but are easy to complete.
Customer support has been improved and includes an “E-Verify Listens” link that can be accessed by the E-Verify user while in the E-Verify system to assist with E-Verify completion.

While the system is not perfect, it is increasingly pervasive and increasingly “user friendly.” Further, employers have a strong incentive to use E-Verify properly to avoid settlements generated by enforcement actions that appear to be directly linked to E-Verify misuse, abuse and fraud.

ARTICLE BY

Jennifer G. Parser

Poyner Spruill LLP

HTTPS – Should I Implement It on My Site?

Google announced last Wednesday, August 6, that the search engine will use https as a ranking signal. HTTPS stands forHypertext Transport Protocol Secure, which protects the data integrity and confidentiality of users visiting a site. For example, when a user enters data into a form on a site in order to subscribe to updates or purchase a product, a secure site protects that user’s personal information and ensures that the user communicates with the authorized owner of the site. For the HTTPS connection to work properly, websites require an SSL certificate, which is what enables the site to make a secure connection.

HTTPS Hypertext Transport Protocol Secure

Even though Google is making this change, it is not something that webmasters should jump into lightly. Webmasters should implement https only when they really need it and have sections in their site where they need to protect their visitors’ information.

Before making any drastic changes to the site, it is important to take into consideration that Google stated that this change will affect less than one percent of queries, carrying less weight than other signals such as high-quality content.

Cons of using https

Up until this recent announcement, it was recommended only using https on the sections of the site that needed to protect the confidentiality of user data, such as payment forms that collected credit card information, the site’s login section or any page that would sends/receive other private information (such as street address, phone number or health records), because using https in the whole site can overload webservers and make sites slower, which affects negatively on a site’s ranking.
Changing to https also means that all of the URLs in your site will change and it will be necessary to redirect all of the URLs on the site, so that they can be indexed by Google and avoid having duplicate content between https and http URLs. Redirects usually increase the load time of the site, which can be negative ranking factor and reduce the link juice coming from external sites pointing to http URLs.
SSL certificates cost money, and certificates signed by well-known authorities can be expensive.

I advise against making an immediate decision to change to https because it is a recent change and apparently the effort to switch exceeds the benefit obtained in rankings. Right now it is better to stand back and observe how the change affects those sites that alter their URLs to https.

ARTICLE BY

Robert Padgett

Consultwebs.com, Inc.

SEC Commissioner Highlights Need for Cyber-Risk Management in Speech at New York Stock Exchange

Cyber risks are an increasingly common risk facing businesses of all kinds. In a recent speech given at the New York Stock Exchange, SEC Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar emphasized that cybersecurity has grown to be a “top concern” of businesses and regulators alike and admonished companies, and more specifically their directors, to “take seriously their obligation to make sure that companies are appropriately addressing those risks.”

Commissioner Aguilar, in the speech delivered as part of the Cyber Risks and the Boardroom Conference hosted by the New York Stock Exchange’s Governance Services department on June 10, 2014, emphasized the responsibility of corporate directors to consider and address the risk of cyber-attacks. The commissioner focused heavily on the obligation of companies to implement cybersecurity measures to prevent attacks. He lauded companies for establishing board committees dedicated to risk management, noting that since 2008, the number of corporations with board-level risk committees responsible for security and privacy risks had increased from 8% to 48%. Commissioner Aguilar nevertheless lamented what he referred to as the “gap” between the magnitude of cyber-risk exposure faced by companies today and the steps companies are currently taking to address those risks. The commissioner referred companies to a federal framework for improving cybersecurity published earlier this year by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which he noted may become a “baseline of best practices” to be used for legal, regulatory, or insurance purposes in assessing a company’s approach to cybersecurity.

Cyber-attack prevention is only half the battle, however. Commissioner Aguilar cautioned that, despite their efforts to prevent a cyber-attack, companies must prepare “for the inevitable cyber-attack and the resulting fallout.” An important part of any company’s cyber-risk management strategy is ensuring the company has adequate insurance coverage to respond to the costs of such an attack, including litigation and business disruption costs.

The insurance industry has responded to the increasing threat of cyber-attacks, such as data breaches, by issuing specific cyber insurance policies, while attempting to exclude coverage of these risks from their standard CGL policies. Commissioner Aguilar observed that the U.S. Department of Commerce has suggested that companies include cyber insurance as part of their cyber-risk management plan, but that many companies still choose to forego this coverage. While businesses without cyber insurance may have coverage under existing policies, insurers have relentlessly fought to cabin their responsibility for claims arising out of cyber-attacks. Additionally, Commissioner Aguilar’s speech emphasizes that cyber-risk management is a board-level obligation, which may subject directors and officers of companies to the threat of litigation after a cyber-attack, underscoring the importance of adequate D&O coverage.

The Commissioner’s speech offers yet another reminder that companies should seek professional advice in determining whether they are adequately covered for losses and D&O liability arising out of a cyber-attack, both in prospectively evaluating insurance needs and in reacting to a cyber-attack when the risk materializes.

Read Commissioner Aguilar’s full speech here.

ARTICLE BY

Shawn Ledingham

Proskauer Rose LLP

Cameras Coming to an Illinois Courtroom Near You: What Are the Rules and What Impact Might They Have

Probably everyone saw portions of the O.J. Simpson and George Zimmerman trials, because each was a high profile case broadcasted on live television. Now, cameras are coming to Illinois courtrooms.

In January 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court approved the use of“extended media coverage” in the courtrooms of judicial circuits that applied for such coverage and received approval. “Extended media coverage” essentially means the use of still cameras, video cameras, and audio recording. Over time, 40 Illinois counties have applied for and received approval to allow extended media coverage in their courtrooms.

Attorneys and clients must familiarize themselves with the applicable rules for extended media coverage, and must consider and prepare for the practical implications if cameras will be present at trial. While such media coverage will likely be limited to criminal cases in most instances, it will inevitably occur in high profile civil cases, including some medical malpractice cases. And, if extended media coverage proves to benefit one side or the other over time, attorneys representing those parties will undoubtedly push for more and more coverage.

Who or What is Considered “Media”?

Historically, the media may have been thought of as newspapers and television stations. Today, however, the term media may include biased blogs, social media, or other similar internet media that does not follow basic standards of journalism. Luckily, Illinois rules operate with a more historical definition of media, thus limiting who may request to cover the trial and hopefully ensuring a certain amount of fairness in reporting. In order to be credentialed under the rules, a media member or organization must be regularly engaged in news gathering and reporting, cover judicial proceedings on a consistent basis, and must regularly follow basic journalistic standards for ethics, accuracy and objectivity.

Request for Extended Media Coverage

Extended media coverage is not allowed as of right. Instead, a credentialed media member must make a written request and have that request granted by the court before extended media coverage is allowed. The request for media coverage must be made at least 14 days before the trial or hearing the media member wishes to cover. Further, the written request must be provided to all attorneys. The 14 day requirement allows the defense time to consider the request and make appropriate objections prior to the trial or hearing.

Objection to Extended Media Coverage

Objections to extended media coverage may be raised by the parties to the lawsuit and may also be raised by witnesses. In either case, a written objection is required, but the timing of the objection can differ for parties and witnesses. If a party, i.e. plaintiff or defendant, wishes to object, his written objection must be filed at least 3 days before the beginning of the trial or hearing. Witnesses must be advised by the attorney presenting their testimony of the right to object, and the witness must file his objection before the beginning of the trial or hearing. The rule also allows the judge to exercise discretion to consider objections that do not comport with the timing requirements.

Once an objection to extended media coverage has been made, the judge may rule on the basis of the written objection alone, or he may choose to hear evidence. At his discretion, the judge may choose to hear evidence from a party, witness, or media coordinator before ruling.

It would be inadvisable to object to media coverage in a trial where no member of the media has made a written request for coverage. Such a pre-emptive motion would be likely to draw media interest where none previously existed.

Technical Requirements and Sharing Equipment

Technical requirements for the cameras and other equipment are provided in the rules. The overall theme of these rules is to ensure that any equipment is not obstructive or disruptive during the trial or hearing. The equipment cannot produce distracting lights or noises during operation. Further, no flashbulbs or other lighting may be used to aid the cameras.

The rules limit the amount of equipment allowed in the courtroom, again with the overall goal of limiting obstructions and distractions. A maximum of two still cameras and two television cameras are allowed, but the judge may choose to limit that to only one still camera and one television camera. Only one audio recording system is permitted. Obviously, if multiple media outlets wish to cover the trial or hearing, they may be required to share the video and audio stream under the rules.

What May be Filmed or Photographed

Most trials and other hearings may be recorded, with exceptions limited mostly to the area of family law. Importantly though, several portions of the trial cannot be recorded. Jury selection cannot be recorded at all, and the media is forbidden from filming or photographing individual jurors or the jury as a whole. This is an important protection provided in the rule, because if a juror is assured that he cannot be recorded, the juror should feel less inclined to consider public opinion in deciding the case. Further, the media may not record interactions between the lawyer and client, between opposing lawyers, or between the judge and the lawyers, i.e. sidebars. And, no materials, papers or exhibits can be recorded unless they are admitted to evidence or shown to the jury. These limitations are obviously important to protect the confidential attorney-client relationship, among other things. Finally, no filming is allowed during recesses or in the public areas or hallways, which provides some known off-camera time.

Live Blogging

A judge also has discretion to allow live blogging during a trial or other proceeding, which does not include visual or audio recording. The most typical example of live blogging would be tweeting, but includes any transmittal in text form of testimony, proceedings, and summaries from the courtroom. Again, only credentialed news media are allowed to engage in live blogging.

The rule allowing for live blogging simply says that it may be allowed upon request. It does not provide a time-period within which the request must be made, and does not provide for objections. However, the decision to allow live blogging is left to the “absolute discretion” of the judge, and therefore, it seems reasonable that a judge would also be vested with the authority to allow objections and consider whatever he deems necessary. In any event, an objection can always be stated on the record, whether or not the judge chooses to consider it.

Required Jury Admonishment and Jury Instruction

Jurors cannot be photographed or filmed, with the apparent goal of minimizing any influence or consideration of public opinion. Carrying this theme further, the rules require the trial judge to read an admonishment to the jury at the beginning of the trial and an instruction to the jury at the conclusion of trial regarding the media coverage. Of course, the admonishment and instruction advise the jury that they should not be influenced by or draw inferences based upon the presence of the media. Also, importantly, the admonishment advises the jury they cannot be photographed or filmed as a group or individually, and it advises the jurors to inform the court if the cameras are distracting or cause an inability to concentrate.

Practical Considerations and Potential Effects

At the outset, the lawyer and client should consider whether they do or do not want cameras in the courtroom. In most cases, the defense would prefer cameras not be present so that the trial is focused exclusively on liability and damages, not extraneous issues. If a request for extended media coverage is made, the lawyer and client should ask themselves why the request is being made, and whether a written objection should be filed. If an objection will be filed, however, it should be based upon specific facts or concerns in that case. The Illinois Supreme Court and local judicial circuit have already determined, from a policy standpoint, that cameras should be allowed if the rules are complied with. Therefore, objections based upon general concerns that cameras may be disruptive or may have a negative impact on the jury are likely to fail.

Conclusion

While most defendants and their lawyers are opposed to cameras in the courtroom, it appears that they are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Given the national trend toward cameras in the courtroom and instantaneous media, it’s hard to imagine that these rules will ever be reversed. Therefore, attorneys and clients will need to carefully consider how to operate within the rules in a way that most favors the presentation of their case.

ARTICLE BY

Matthew Thompson

Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C.

The National Law Forum

Department of State Releases September 2014 Visa Bulletin

Like this:

Patent Practitioners: Inventions and the Ecosystem of Ideas

Like this:

Attend the Retail Law 2014 Conference – October 15-17, 2014, Charlotte, North Carolina

Like this:

SEC Brings Fraud Charges Against Oil and Gas Company and Its CEO

Like this: