Tag: Litigation

District Court Grants Motion to Compel Against Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), Holding that “Facts” Are Not Work Product In SEC Confidential Witness Interviews

Sheppardlogo

In a recent Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation, the SEC interviewed three persons who had proffer agreements with the SEC and United States Attorney. In a subsequent SEC enforcement action, a defendant served interrogatories asking the SEC to identify the factual information disclosed in those proffer sessions. The SEC objected, and the defendant moved to compel. The SEC opposed the motion to compel, arguing that defendant sought information protected by the attorney work product doctrine, had not shown substantial need and unavailability, and had not deposed any of the witnesses, despite their identification in Rule 26 disclosures more than a year before. The magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to compel, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California confirmed the ruling. SEC v. Sells, No. C 11-4941 CW, 2013 WL 1411247 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013).

There had already been an order in the case directing the SEC to answer identical interrogatories about another third-party witness. The SEC had acknowledged it was relying upon that witness’s statements as a basis for the allegations against the same defendant. The court rejected the SEC’s attorney work product objection because the interrogatories sought factual information, and not an attorney’s strategies or mental impressions. The court relied on an earlier decision, In re Convergent Technologies, 122 F.R.D. 555, 558 (N.D. Cal. 1988), in which the court reiterated the well-established principle that “the law does not permit counsel or litigants to use the work product doctrine to hide the facts themselves.” Nor does it shield from discovery the identities of the persons from whom an attorney learned such facts or the existence or non-existence of documents.

An interesting side note about the three witnesses is that their interviews were not recorded, unlike the other fourteen witnesses in this case. Because of this, any inconsistencies, disclosures of motives for their proffers or other potential impeachment evidence were not “otherwise available” to defense counsel. The SEC also advised the court that the three witnesses might testify at trial.

The lesson of this case is not to underestimate the value to defendants in SEC enforcement proceedings of specific, simply stated interrogatories. The SEC was not ordered to turn over its attorneys’ notes. Instead, it was ordered to answer interrogatories. This case also reminds lawyers not to give up, even when your adversary is far more powerful. In the words of the magistrate judge who handled “every possible objection” that the SEC had asserted to avoid answering, “Sunshine is ordinarily the best medicine for a party that is keeping discoverable information hidden in the dark. But where, as here, one party is repeatedly withholding relevant information, stronger medicine may be required.”

Article By:

 of

No “Safe Harbor” for BitTorrent Website Operator

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced third parties to download infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., et al.  v. Gary Fung, et al., Case No. 10-55946 (9th Cir., Mar.21, 2013) (Berzon, J.).

Seven film studios—including Columbia Pictures, Disney and Twentieth Century Fox—sued Gary Fung and his company isoHunt Technologies, claiming that Fung induced third parties to download infringing copies of the studios’ copyrighted works through Fung’s websites, such as torrentbox.com and isohunt.com—websites that help users find copies of videos to download and stream through a type of peer-to-peer file sharing network.

The district court found Fung liable for contributory copyright infringement for inducing others to infringe the studios’ copyrights and also found that Fung was not entitled to protection from damages liability under the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  After a permanent injunction was issued, Fung appealed.

On appeal, Fung challenged the full holding, including the scope of the injunction claiming that it was vague, punitive and an impediment to free speech.  The 9th Circuit, citing the Supreme Court decision in Grokster III (which also dealt with peer-to-peer file sharing technology), analyzed the facts of the present case under the four elements of the Grokster III inducement principle:  the distribution of a device or product, acts of infringement, an object of promoting its use to infringe copyright and causation.

Inducement Liability Under Grokster III

With respect to the first element of the Grokster III inducement liability standard, Fung argued that he did not develop or distribute products, nor did he develop the BitTorrent protocol used by his websites.  The 9th Circuit, however, distinguished copyrights as expression that are not necessarily in the form of products or devices. Thus, the court concluded that a copyright can be infringed through “culpable actions resulting in impermissible reproductions of copyrighted expression,” even if such actions are the provision of services used in accomplishing the infringement.

Fung was not able to rebut the second “acts of infringement” Grokster III factor after the studios presented evidence that Fung’s services were widely used to infringe copyrights by allowing uploading and downloading of copyrighted material. Accordingly, the court found for the studios on the second factor, noting that the “predominant use” of Fung’s services was for copyright infringement.

As to the third Grokster III factor, the court agreed with Fung that mere knowledge of a potential to infringe, or knowledge of actual infringing uses of a product or service, is not enough for liability.  Nevertheless, the court found there was more than enough evidence that Fung offered his services with the object to promote their use to infringe copyrighted material.  Specifically, the court found that the evidence showed Fung actively encouraged uploading files of specific copyrighted material; he provided links for certain movies and urged users to download those movies; he affirmatively responded to requests for help in locating and playing copyrighted materials; and, he even personally instructed users on how to burn infringing files to DVDs.  The court also referenced two points of circumstantial evidence raised by the Grokster III opinion, namely, that Fung took no steps to develop filtering tools to diminish infringing activity and that he generated revenue by selling advertising space on his websites.

Finally, as to causation, the court adopted the studios’ interpretation of causation and held that the acts of infringement by third parties need only be caused by the product distributed or services provided.  This was contrary to Fung’s theory of causation (which was also joined by amicus curiae, Google) wherein Fung claimed that the infringement must be directly caused by a defendant’s inducing messages.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act “Safe Harbor” Provisions

Fung also asserted affirmative defenses under three of the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, 17 U.S.C. §512(a), (c) and (d). Although the studios argued that there can never be a DMCA safe harbor defense to contributory copyright liability inducement, the 9th Circuit disagreed, noting that the safe harbor provisions do not exclude vicarious or contributory liability from its protections. Even so, the court denied all of Fung’s safe harbor defenses.

In particular, the court concluded that Fung did not qualify for protection under §512(a) for transitory digital network communications because Fung’s torrent file trackers, not the third party users, were responsible for selecting the copyrighted data to be transmitted.

The court also concluded that § 512(c), relating to information residing on networks or systems at the direction of the users, was also not applicable because Fung had actual and “red flag” knowledge of infringing activity on his system due to his own active encouragement of infringement, as well as the fact that Fung did not dispute evidence that he personally used his isohunt.com website to download infringing material.

According to the 9th Circuit, Fung did not qualify for protection under §512(c) or §512(d) (for providers of information location tools) because Fung received a “financial benefit” from his services by selling ad space and because he had the “right and ability to control” the infringing activity, which was shown through evidence that Fung exerted substantial influence on the activities of the users of his websites.

Finding no available defenses under the DMCA safe harbors, the court affirmed summary judgment for the studios on the issue of liability under contributory copyright infringement.  However, the court found various terms of the lower court’s permanent injunction to be vague and unduly burdensome and remanded to the district court to modify certain employment prohibitions and to provide more specific language for several terms in the injunction.

Article By:

 of

Where Do Your Interests Lie Under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code?

Mintz Logo

Determining a foreign debtor’s “center of main interests” and its effect on creditors’ rights

When doing business with a foreign company, it is important to identify the company’s “center of main interests” (“COMI”) as creditors may find themselves bound by the laws of the COMI locale. If a company initiates insolvency proceedings outside the U.S., it must petition a U.S. court under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code for recognition of the foreign proceeding. If the foreign proceeding is found to be a “foreign main proceeding” (i.e., a proceeding pending where the debtor has its COMI), Chapter 15 provides certain automatic, nondiscretionary relief, including an automatic stay of all proceedings against the debtor in the U.S. Therefore, when faced with a foreign insolvency proceeding, U.S. creditors’ rights will often be determined in the jurisdiction where the debtor’s COMI is located. However, despite its significance, COMI is left undefined by the statute, which prompted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7608 (2nd Cir. April 16, 2013) to determine the relevant factors for locating a COMI and the appropriate time frame to consider those factors.

In Morning Mist, Miguel Lomeli and Morning Mist Holdings Limited (collectively, “Morning Mist”) filed a derivative action in New York state court against Fairfield Sentry Limited (the “Debtor”). The Debtor was one of Bernie Madoff’s largest “feeder funds,” having invested over $7 billion in the scheme. Shortly after the commencement of the derivative action, the Debtor initiated liquidation proceedings in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”). Then, in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor petitioned the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York for recognition of the BVI liquidation proceeding. The bankruptcy court granted the Chapter 15 petition, recognizing the BVI liquidation as a “foreign main proceeding” and imposing an automatic stay on all proceedings against the Debtor in the U.S., including the derivative action. The district court upheld the bankruptcy court’s decision, and Morning Mist appealed to the Second Circuit, arguing that the lower courts improperly found the BVIs to be the Debtor’s COMI.

To determine the Debtor’s COMI, the Second Circuit examined which factors should be considered and over what time period. Tackling the temporal element first, the Court concluded that the Chapter 15 petition filing date is the relevant review period, subject to an inquiry into whether the process has been manipulated. To offset a debtor’s ability to manipulate its COMI, a court may also review the period between the initiation of the foreign liquidation proceeding and the filing of the Chapter 15 petition. The Court squarely rejected Morning Mist’s suggestion that courts must consider a debtor’s entire operational history.

As for the appropriate factors to consider in locating a COMI, the Second Circuit held that any relevant activities, including liquidation activities and administrative functions, may be considered in a COMI analysis. Elaborating, the Court held that Chapter 15 creates a rebuttable presumption that the country where the debtor has its registered office will be its COMI, but recognized that courts have focused on a variety of other factors as well, including the location of the debtor’s headquarters, the location of those who actually manage the debtor, the location of the debtor’s primary assets, the location of the majority of the debtor’s creditors or the majority of the creditors who would be affected by the case, and/or the jurisdiction whose law would apply to most disputes. However, the Second Circuit emphasized that consideration of these factors is neither required nor dispositive.

Finally, Morning Mist argued that Chapter 15’s public policy exception (“Nothing in this chapter prevents the court from refusing to take an action governed by this chapter if the action would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States.”) applied because the BVI proceedings were confidential and therefore “cloaked in secrecy.” The Second Circuit quickly dismissed this argument explaining that the public policy exception should be read restrictively and invoked only under exceptional circumstances concerning matters of fundamental importance for the enacting State. Recognizing that court pleadings can be sealed in U.S. cases, including bankruptcy cases, the Second Circuit found that the confidentiality of the BVI bankruptcy proceedings did not offend U.S. public policy.

The Morning Mist case adds some clarity to a significant issue in cross border insolvencies by highlighting the importance of understanding the internal operations and structure of foreign companies—factors that could affect the ability of U.S. creditors to seek redress in U.S. courts.

Article By:

of

Top Five Traps for the Unwary in Spin-Offs

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

A wave of corporate breakups has swept through the United States over the last few years as investors have taken notice of the fact that smaller companies focused on a single business tend to outperform their more diversified peers.  A primary vehicle for these breakups has been the spin-off transaction, in which a publicly traded parent company distributes the shares of the spin-off company (spinco) to its own shareholders, creating a new, independent publicly traded entity.  The New York Times, citing Dealogic, reported that there were 93 spin-off transactions worth $128 billion in 2011, and that 2012 kept pace with 85 spin-off transactions worth $109 billion.  The rationale for a spin-off often is to unlock the value in a business or division that is trapped in a larger corporate bureaucracy.  Conglomerates tend to spread capital across all of their divisions rather than focusing on the individual opportunities within each business that are the most promising.  Holding company structures also can make decision-making more cumbersome and equity incentives less incentivizing for division management who feel as though their hard work is being diluted by the underperformance of other divisions or businesses.

Spin-offs, however, are complicated transactions that require a great deal of advance planning.  In many cases, an announcement that a parent company is considering the spin-off of one of its businesses is actually the start of a “dual-track” process wherein the parent company considers and plans for a spin-off while also remaining open to potential bids from third parties to acquire the business.  In even more complicated cases, a parent company agrees to sell a business to an acquirer in connection with a spin-off transaction.

The vast majority of spin-off transactions are designed to qualify under the rules of the Internal Revenue Code as “tax free” to the parent company and the shareholders who receive the spinco stock.

With this in mind, any company considering spinning off a division or business should keep in mind the following five potential traps.

1.  Tax-Free Qualification – Legitimate Business Purpose 

The spin-off must satisfy a legitimate business purpose in order to qualify under both the tax-free rules of the Internal Revenue Code and the Securities Act of 1933.  The tax authorities require that the spin-off be motivated in whole or in substantial part by one or more legitimate corporate business purposes in order to ensure that the purpose of the transaction is not simply “tax avoidance.”  The business purpose requirement is one of many requirements under the tax laws to qualify for a tax-free spin-off.  Because the costs of triggering tax in a spin-off transaction often are very high, most parent companies obtain a legal opinion from outside counsel and obtain a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service as a condition to completing a spin-off transaction.  As discussed in relation to trap number five below, a legitimate business purpose for the spin-off also is required under the securities laws in order for the distribution of the spinco stock to not be treated as a “sale” of securities by the parent company or the spinco requiring Securities Act of 1933 registration and the strict liability standard of care that comes with such a registration.  See the article entitled, “Five Key Tax Considerations for Spin-Off Transactions” for a more in depth discussion of tax issues raised in spin-offs.

2.  Separation of Assets and Liabilities

Before a business or a division can be spun off, both its assets and its liabilities must be separated.  Large companies with long operating histories often find that the process of separating out the spinco business is not straightforward, because the legal entities that house the business might also house other businesses and divisions that share assets, services, products, employees, vendors and customers with the spinco business.  The pre-spin separation transactions should avoid triggering contractual defaults and remedies under commercial agreements, financing agreements, intellectual property licensing agreements, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, benefit plans, etc.  Often the spinco and the parent company or another legacy business must enter into complex sharing or licensing agreements or joint ventures relating to valuable intellectual property, such as trade names, trademarks or patents, as well as employee matters.  See the article entitled “Trademark, Domain Name and Other IP Considerations for Spin-Offs” for a more in depth discussion of IP issues raised in spin-offs and see the article entitled, “Employee Benefit Issues in a Spin-Off” for a more in depth discussion of employee benefit issues raised in spin-offs.

The sharing of liabilities is often the most complicated endeavour because of the slew of legal obligations that are triggered.  In allocating liabilities to the spinco, the parent company must evaluate the impact such allocation will have on the solvency of the parent and the spinco.  Parent company directors can face personal liability under state corporate law for making an unlawful dividend because the company lacked sufficient capital to make such a dividend or for rendering the parent company insolvent by distributing out the spinco business, and the parent company itself can face claims of constructive fraudulent conveyance—i.e., the parent company received less than equivalent value, and either the parent or spinco was rendered insolvent (assets do not exceed liabilities), the parent and/or spinco was left with unreasonably small capital to run its respective business, or the parent or spinco was left with debts that exceed its respective ability to pay those debts as they become due.  Parent company directors can rely on legal experts and financial advisors to assist them in satisfying their duty of care.  A solvency opinion from a nationally recognized provider of such opinions is often a condition to the consummation of a spin-off transaction.  Such an opinion may be helpful to the directors of the parent company and spinco for a variety of reasons: (i) it can help to show that the directors properly exercised their duty of care in determining to enter into the spin-off transaction; (ii) it can assist in rebutting a fraudulent conveyance claim; and (iii) it can assist in rebutting a claim that the company had insufficient capital to make such a dividend.

3.  Transition Services

While one of the key rationales for spinning off a business or division is to allow the enterprise to operate independently, the reality in most cases is that, at least during the first year or so post-spin, a spinco must rely on its former parent company to provide many key administrative and operational services during the spinco’s transition period to a self-sufficient, independent public company.  During the pre-spin planning period, companies should consider, among other things, which transition services will be required, how they will be provided, for how long and under what pricing terms.  Typical transition services include legal, internal auditing, logistics, procurement, quality assurance, distribution and marketing.  These arrangements often have durations that last between six and 24 months.  Many parent companies agree to provide such transition services purely on a cost basis, while others will use a “cost plus” or “market” rate.

4.  Spinco Management and Board of Directors

Again, while independence from the former parent company is a key benefit for most spincos, having corporate managers with institutional knowledge and history with the enterprise is an important factor in assisting the spinco to successfully transition to independence.  Many spinco management teams include members who have served as executives at the former parent company.  In many cases, these are managers who served as division leaders who reported to the parent company CEO or CFO and are now ready to step into executive roles on their own.  It is also common for between one and three members of the parent company board to agree to take seats on the spinco board to provide the new public company board with a source of the company’s history and culture to ensure a smooth transition.  However, because of the competing fiduciary duties that these directors will face if they hold seats on both the parent and spinco boards, it is important for the spinco board to also have a majority of truly independent directors.  Spinco directors who are former executive officers of the parent also must be aware that the stock exchanges and influential shareholder services firms such as Institutional Shareholder Services will not view them as being truly independent from a corporate governance standpoint for some time after the completion of the spin-off.  This will inhibit their ability to serve on key board committees of the spinco.

5.  Preparation of the Disclosure 

Under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules, a spin-off of the shares of a subsidiary to a parent company’s shareholders does not involve the sale of securities by either the parent company or the subsidiary as long as the following conditions are met: (i) the parent company does not provide consideration for the spun-off shares; (ii) the spin-off is pro rata to the parent company shareholders; (iii) the parent company provides adequate information about the spin-off and the subsidiary to its shareholders and to the trading markets; and (iv) the parent has a valid business purpose for the spin-off.

To meet the adequate public information requirement, parent companies are required to prepare and disseminate detailed “information statements” that effectively look like initial public offering registration statements for the spinco.  These information statements are filed with the spinco’s Form 10 registration statement, which is required in order to register the spinco’s shares under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and to permit listing of such shares on a national securities exchange.  The preparation of the spinco information statement can take up to three or four months and requires a great deal of effort and cooperation among the lawyers, the business leaders, the finance department, the human resources/employee benefits department and the auditors.  In addition, under New York law, a spin-off of all or substantially all of a company’s assets may require a vote of such company’s shareholders, while under Delaware law, such a requirement is much less likely.

Article By:

 of

Are Social Media Posts Discoverable?

The National Law Review recently published an article by Bruce H. Raymond of Raymond Law Group LLC regarding Social Media Posts:

RaymondBannerMED

A party files a request for production pursuant to Rule 34 seeking any profiles, messages (including status updates, wall comments, causes joined, groups joined, activity streams, blog entries) from social networking sites that reveal, refer or relate to any emotion, feeling, or mental state of plaintiff as well as communications by the plaintiff that may reveal or relate to events that could be expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling or mental state.

Essentially, the opposing counsel wants your social media activity. Potentially all of it. A party’s first thought might be that is private! I don’t want anyone to see it. However, depending on the claims advanced by a party this information may be discoverable and potential damaging and/or embarrassing posts may be ordered produced.

The production of social media posts, such as Facebook wall posts, are governed by the same relevance standard as any other discovery requests. While this issue is relatively new, cases and discovery orders on motions to compel are starting to become more prevalent. For instance, on Sept 7, 2012 a U.S. District Court granted a motion to compel social media posts from a plaintiff who claimed she was discriminated against by Home Depot. See Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., 2012 WL 3939063 (C.D. Cal. Sept 7, 2012).

The plaintiff had testified at her deposition that as a result of the defendant’s actions, plaintiff suffered from depression. Defendant then sought to discover social media posts such as pictures on Facebook that would undermine the plaintiff’s claims of isolation and loss of friendship.

In examining the defendant’s discovery requests, the court noted that social networking posts are neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy. However, the court acknowledged FRCP 34 does not allow a requesting party “a generalized right to rummage at will” through a party’s Facebook posts, but rather requires a threshold showing that the requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Therefore, the court held that a request for any profiles, postings or messages that reveal or relate to plaintiff’s emotional or mental state was too broad and failed to put a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence on notice of which specified documents or information would be responsive to the request.

However, the court did order the plaintiff to produce all social networking posts which in any way refer to her employment at Home Depot. Other courts have applied a similar rationale. For instance, another U.S. District Court denied a discovery request  in a slip and fall case seeking production of the plaintiff’s entire Facebook account.   Tompkins v. Detroit Metro Airport  , 278 F.R.D. 387 (E.D. Mich. 2012).

The defendant attached to their motion to compel pictures that were publically available on the plaintiff’s Facebook wall as well as private surveillance photos which showed her standing at a party and holding a small dog. The defendant argued these posts showed the relevance of the private posts which the defendant could not view. The court disagreed and stated that holding a small dog was not inconsistent with plaintiff’s claim of injury and therefore the defendant did not have a strong enough argument to obtain discovery of the plaintiff’s entire Facebook account. The court noted that if the pictures had showed her playing golf or riding a horse the defendant’s argument would have been stronger.

What is clear is that Facebook posts can be discoverable and that courts will utilize traditional principles of relevance to determine whether social media account information must be produced. While case law is still developing on this issue, counsel would be advised to limit their requests for social media posts to those that are relevant to the case as opposed to seeking a party’s entire Facebook account.

comp arrow.png

© 2013 by Raymond Law Group LLC

The Top 10 Ways To Reduce Discovery Costs: Nos. 10-6

Barnes & Thornburg

It should come as no surprise to most employers that employment litigation is on the rise. It also should come as no surprise that discovery is seen as the biggest single driver of litigation expenses. Recent studies have shown that discovery can consume up to 68 percent of the costs in a case. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of attorneys – both plaintiff and defense attorneys alike – agree that the costs of litigation and particularly discovery are not proportional to the value of a case. As a result, far too many cases are settled not to avoid the possibility of an adverse outcome, but simply to avoid the monumental costs of litigation.

The United States is virtually alone when it comes to litigating in this fashion. Most other countries permit discovery only as to those things that are contained in the pleadings.  This was the same methodology employed in the United States prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938. The idea behind more expansive discovery was to avoid ambush tactics where litigants could withhold vital information until trial. In many ways, the goals behind the discovery rules have worked. Parties today have greater opportunities to explore the relative strengths and weaknesses of the other side’s case early on so that they can try to work out a negotiated settlement. On the other side of the coin, however, the costs have gone way up – and especially since the advent of the digital revolution over the last few decades.

Grappling with the ever growing costs of litigation – and particularly discovery – is a problem that vexes even the most experienced litigator or in-house counsel. While there are no quick fixes or easy answers, the following top 10 list, which represents the fruits of over a decade of hard-earned lessons drawn from real-world lawsuits, may help guide employers toward regaining some measure of control over their bursting discovery budgets.

The Top 10 Ways To Reduce Discovery Costs: Nos. 10-6

10. Avoid Chasing Shadows. The failure to document key events in the employment of a worker not only creates needless gaps that require quick thinking and explanations from supervisors, but also increases discovery costs. If a document is critical enough, the plaintiff’s lawyer may not simply accept the explanation that it is missing or cannot be found. This could result in every stone being overturned and all avenues being investigated before the attorney (or the court) finally is satisfied that the phantom document is really gone or that it never existed in the first place – leaving the employer to deal with the ramifications of the fact that a critical document wasn’t created and/or maintained as it should have been.

9. Remember The Big Picture. Discovery is a tool – nothing more and nothing less. For any company involved in a lawsuit, the ultimate goal is to achieve the best possible and most economical result.  The goal is not play games in discovery or to fight tooth and nail over something the other side is entitled to anyway just because they happen to be an adversary. Too often discovery takes on a life of its own and takes over the entirety of the litigation process. Obviously, employers should fight over what is important to them, but they are not likely to win by being obstructionists.  Unreasonable conduct will just embitter the other side, antagonize the court and drag out the entire process.

8. Avoid the Data Dump. Employers know their own records and data far better than their outside counsel.  However, many employers responding to discovery simply hand over a ton of data to their counsel and expect them to sort through it. This can be tedious, time consuming and expensive.  While the attorneys need to review the materials for production purposes, providing context is key.  Sheparding the attorney through the materials by giving context such as identifying what is (or is not) the employee’s personnel file, where handwritten notes came from, who wrote the handwritten notes, and why there are multiple versions of the same document all can help defray costs down the line.  Employers don’t need to pay their lawyers to sort out patent inconsistencies in materials that the employer easily can resolve before it sends the items to the counsel for review.

7. Eliminate Chaos. Key documents should be kept in a secure and central location. It makes little sense to produce a personnel file only to discover months later during the deposition of a supervisor that the supervisor kept a separate personnel file with key documents that never were produced in discovery. This results in unnecessary discovery requests for the separate file and worse, exposes the supervisor to yet another deposition about that file. Beyond the inefficiency and duplication of effort, scattershot maintenance of employment records like this also can create the false impression that the company is hiding things.

6. Get Ahead of Electronic Discovery. All employers should have a document retention policy that addresses electronically stored information. Employers should know where their electronic information is stored and make sure they have a process to respond to litigation and discovery requests that may be made.  Employers also should make sure they can process electronically stored materials in the event they do need to produce them.  When involved in litigation, employers should have their counsel work with the other side to come up with manageable and reasonable search terms and iron out processing issues such as how the information should be produced. To the extent that an employer has sufficient resources, processing electronic discovery in-house instead of shipping it to an expensive third-party reviewer or counsel also should be considered as options to reduce costs.

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 15-17 September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Resort, Spa, Las Vegas, NV

The National Law Review is  pleased to announce the Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 is taking place on the 15 through 17 of  September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Las Vegas, NV.

A Unique Event

The future of litigation will bring new matters, increased competition and a strong need for budget maximization. Employment, IP, product liability, commercial and securities litigation continue to become more complex and therefore more costly. As a Chief Litigation Officer, one of the main challenges is to stay within budget, and tactics such as eDiscovery and specialized outside counsel certainly compound this challenge.

Executives that can find solutions and best practices to work through these challenges will stand out amid a mounting sea of litigation counsel. By employing alternative billing structures, one can allow for fair and accurate budgeting in hopes of maximizing resources, which will help contribute to a successful trial. Skillful planning, organizing and managing of cases is absolutely necessary to stay on top of your game during the trial or deciding on alternative dispute resolution. Enhancing outside counsel relationships through effective communication can greatly increase your odds and assist in dealing with a building case load.

The Chief Litigation Officer Summit provides a unique forum for service providers to gain access to the leading in-house counsel across the nation. Over three days, service providers will meet and interact with the heads of litigation from the country’s leading organizations through a number of one-on-one business meetings and many networking activities. In addition, service providers will attend strategic conference sessions and keynote presentations delivered by these heads of litigation. Within the luxurious settings of The Red Rock Casino, Resort & Spa, this networking event presents a unique opportunity to develop meaningful and valuable business relations.

marcus evans will seek CLE accreditation in those states requested by registrants which have continuing education requirements. CLE credit hour information will be displayed on the certificate of attendance, which is provided to the attendees after the event has run and once each State has confirmed approval. marcus evans certifies that this activity has been approved for CLE credits by the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Pennsylvania.

Our executive delegation is selected according to the following criteria:

  • Scope of Responsibility
  • Budget
  • Sign-off Authority
  • Company Revenue
  • Interest in Purchasing Products and Services

Delegates will include decision makers with the job titles of General Counsel Litigation, Assistant General Counsel Litigation, Associate General Counsel, Litigation, Chief Litigation Officer, Vice President, Litigation and Senior Litigation Counsel with ultimate responsibility for litigation within their corporations.
Six Reasons Why You Should Attend the Summit:

  • Attend innovative summit sessions that outline tools to maximize the profitability of your company or organization
  • Network with an executive, focused group of your peers to discuss and debate differentiated strategies and develop future business contacts
  • Meet with leading Solution Providers to gain solutions to your most pressing business challenges
  • Maximize your time spent at the event by pre-selecting Keynote presentations, summit sessions, one-on-one meetings and networking activities through the Secured Summit Web site and scheduling software
  • Extensive opportunities for informal peer networking throughout the weekend through day and evening leisure activities
  • Documentation of presentations and information presented at the Summit via the interactive Web site


Delegate Package 

  • Pre-event Secured Web site access for scheduling
  • Executive Summit Program
  • 8-10 one-on-one business meetings with Solution Provider executives
  • Post-event Web site access for documentation and information on next event
  • Two nights accommodation at the Resort
  • All meals, receptions & special events
  • Participation in the Summit networking activities


For information on attending as a Delegate, please contact:
Marketing Manager
E: webenquiries@marcusevansbb.com
T: 246 627 3761

Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 15-17 September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Resort, Spa, Las Vegas, NV

The National Law Review is  pleased to announce the Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 is taking place on the 15 through 17 of  September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Las Vegas, NV.

A Unique Event

The future of litigation will bring new matters, increased competition and a strong need for budget maximization. Employment, IP, product liability, commercial and securities litigation continue to become more complex and therefore more costly. As a Chief Litigation Officer, one of the main challenges is to stay within budget, and tactics such as eDiscovery and specialized outside counsel certainly compound this challenge.

Executives that can find solutions and best practices to work through these challenges will stand out amid a mounting sea of litigation counsel. By employing alternative billing structures, one can allow for fair and accurate budgeting in hopes of maximizing resources, which will help contribute to a successful trial. Skillful planning, organizing and managing of cases is absolutely necessary to stay on top of your game during the trial or deciding on alternative dispute resolution. Enhancing outside counsel relationships through effective communication can greatly increase your odds and assist in dealing with a building case load.

The Chief Litigation Officer Summit provides a unique forum for service providers to gain access to the leading in-house counsel across the nation. Over three days, service providers will meet and interact with the heads of litigation from the country’s leading organizations through a number of one-on-one business meetings and many networking activities. In addition, service providers will attend strategic conference sessions and keynote presentations delivered by these heads of litigation. Within the luxurious settings of The Red Rock Casino, Resort & Spa, this networking event presents a unique opportunity to develop meaningful and valuable business relations.

marcus evans will seek CLE accreditation in those states requested by registrants which have continuing education requirements. CLE credit hour information will be displayed on the certificate of attendance, which is provided to the attendees after the event has run and once each State has confirmed approval. marcus evans certifies that this activity has been approved for CLE credits by the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Pennsylvania.

Our executive delegation is selected according to the following criteria:

  • Scope of Responsibility
  • Budget
  • Sign-off Authority
  • Company Revenue
  • Interest in Purchasing Products and Services

Delegates will include decision makers with the job titles of General Counsel Litigation, Assistant General Counsel Litigation, Associate General Counsel, Litigation, Chief Litigation Officer, Vice President, Litigation and Senior Litigation Counsel with ultimate responsibility for litigation within their corporations.
Six Reasons Why You Should Attend the Summit:

  • Attend innovative summit sessions that outline tools to maximize the profitability of your company or organization
  • Network with an executive, focused group of your peers to discuss and debate differentiated strategies and develop future business contacts
  • Meet with leading Solution Providers to gain solutions to your most pressing business challenges
  • Maximize your time spent at the event by pre-selecting Keynote presentations, summit sessions, one-on-one meetings and networking activities through the Secured Summit Web site and scheduling software
  • Extensive opportunities for informal peer networking throughout the weekend through day and evening leisure activities
  • Documentation of presentations and information presented at the Summit via the interactive Web site


Delegate Package 

  • Pre-event Secured Web site access for scheduling
  • Executive Summit Program
  • 8-10 one-on-one business meetings with Solution Provider executives
  • Post-event Web site access for documentation and information on next event
  • Two nights accommodation at the Resort
  • All meals, receptions & special events
  • Participation in the Summit networking activities


For information on attending as a Delegate, please contact:
Marketing Manager
E: webenquiries@marcusevansbb.com
T: 246 627 3761

Chief Litigation Officer Summit – September 13-15, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Chief Litigation Officer Summit:

The Chief Litigation Officer Summit will highlight the current challenges and opportunities through visionary conference sessions and keynote presentations delivered by your most esteemed peers and thought leaders from America’s leading corporations. The one-on-one meetings with leading service providers will offer vast expertise in the area of litigation. All this, seamlessly integrated with informal networking opportunities over three days, will provide a unique interactive forum. Do not miss this opportunity to network, establish new connections, exchange ideas and gain knowledge.

Chief Litigation Officer Summit – September 13-15, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Chief Litigation Officer Summit:

The Chief Litigation Officer Summit will highlight the current challenges and opportunities through visionary conference sessions and keynote presentations delivered by your most esteemed peers and thought leaders from America’s leading corporations. The one-on-one meetings with leading service providers will offer vast expertise in the area of litigation. All this, seamlessly integrated with informal networking opportunities over three days, will provide a unique interactive forum. Do not miss this opportunity to network, establish new connections, exchange ideas and gain knowledge.