A recent California Court of Appeal decision highlights the narrow construction given to the commercial speech exemption of California’s anti-SLAPP statute, and the burden on plaintiffs opposing an anti-SLAPP motion on the basis of the exemption. Continue Reading
What would companies need to do to comply with the law?
The Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security (SHIELD) Act imposes requirements in two areas: cybersecurity and data breach notification. The cybersecurity provisions of the proposed SHIELD Act would require companies to adopt “reasonable safe-guards to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity” of private information. The Act provides examples of appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, such as designating an employee to oversee the company’s data security program; identifying “reasonably foreseeable” risks to data security; selecting vendors that can maintain appropriate safeguards; detecting, preventing and responding to attacks and system failures; and preventing unauthorized access to private information. Continue Reading
In November 2017, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman introduced the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security (SHIELD) Act (the “Act”) in the state’s Legislature. Companies – big and small – that collect information from New York residents should take note, as the Act could mean increased compliance costs, as well as potential enforcement actions for those that do not meet the Act’s requirements. This blog post provides a breakdown of the essential components of the SHIELD Act and information on how to comply with this potential new law. Continue Reading
Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) with the hope of preventing abuse in class action lawsuits. CAFA assigns jurisdiction to federal courts over class actions where: (i) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000); (ii) the class comprises at least 100 plaintiffs; and (iii) there is at least “minimal diversity” between the parties (i.e., at least one plaintiff class member is diverse from at least one defendant). In addition, CAFA mandates that courts apply greater scrutiny to class action settlements and, in particular, those involving coupons (i.e., vouchers or other non-cash disbursements which can be redeemed for (typically discounted) products or services). Continue Reading
Those who thought designating social media posts as “private” would be sufficient to shield them from outsiders—including opposing parties in litigation—had better think again. On February 13, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, unanimously held that the rules generally applicable to discovery in civil actions are just as applicable to “private” social media posts, and that they are therefore subject to disclosure if they are “reasonably calculated to contain evidence ‘material and necessary’ to the litigation.” Forman v. Henkin, New York State Court of Appeals, No. 1 (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3101(a)). Continue Reading
Late last month, in Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd., the Second Circuit affirmed a $2.7 million sanctions award against defendant ePRO after repeated instances of discovery misconduct. Finding that the district court’s award properly reflected the additional costs plaintiff Klipsch Group Inc. was forced to bear due to ePRO’s actions, the Second Circuit disagreed with ePRO that the sanctions were impermissibly punitive and disproportionate. In an era of increasingly complex digital discovery, this case serves as both a sword and a shield: it protects litigants who pursue corrective discovery efforts to remedy an opponent’s willful mishandling of discoverable information, and it punishes litigants who flout their duties to maintain and disclose relevant information. Continue Reading