CyberLife: Social Media, Right-of-Publicity and Consenting to Terms of Service

On July 19, 2017 Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie published “CyberLife: Social Media, Right-of-Publicity and Consenting to Terms of Service” in the Legal Executive Institute blog. The past few years have seen a surge of activity in right-of-publicity litigation related to social media. Cases such as Fraley v. Facebook and Perkins v. LinkedIn addressed social media websites’ unauthorized use […]

Social Media E-Discovery: How To Request And Respond – Courts Have Provided Guidance For Litigators

On May 3, 2017 Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie published “Social Media E-Discovery: How To Request And Respond – Courts Have Provided Guidance For Litigators” in Metropolitan Corporate Counsel’s In-House Ops blog.

Seeking information from social media accounts is becoming commonplace in litigation. Obtaining social media discovery, however, can pose significant challenges, as this information can take many forms, involve different file types, be generated by different users and be extremely voluminous. To avoid pitfalls, requesting parties should avoid blanket requests and be specific about the social media material they want and need. Likewise, responding parties should fully produce social media data responsive to a request, and fully document redacted or withheld material.

“The Neutral Corner: Using Forensic Neutrals in Trade Secret Disputes”

On May 2, 2017, Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie published the fourth article in his column “The Neutral Corner” on Thomson Reuters’ Legal Executive Institute blog. The article is titled “The Neutral Corner: Using Forensic Neutrals in Trade Secret Disputes”.

The dirty secret of trade secret disputes is that even if you win, it can be difficult to get back to where you started. It’s like closing the stable door after the horses have run off with trade secret disputes. A court or arbitration panel may not have trouble reaching findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the secrets are still out there. And ensuring that the trade secret information is entirely removed from the offending company’s systems is a lot harder than rounding up wild horses.

Enter the forensic neutral. Forensic neutrals can help sort out the technical messes that often accompany trade secret disputes.

The graphic When to Use a Forensic Neutral further illustrates the questions to ask to determine whether you may need to retain a Forensic Neutral.

“Discovery Obligations Apply to Plaintiffs Too” publishes in New York Law Journal

On March 7, 2017 Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie and Yoav Griver published “Discovery Obligations Apply to Plaintiffs Too” in the New York Law Journal.

Today, individuals create a tremendous amount of data, whether it be through emails, mobile devices, or the Internet of Things (IoT). Plaintiffs that may not have been properly concerned with their preservation obligations in the past must place a new emphasis on the matter, or risk severe sanctions.

“The DNC Hack Was Not an Act of War” publishes in Metropolitan Corporate Counsel

On February 24, 2017, Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie and Joey Johnson published “The DNC Hack Was Not an Act of War: What we call it under international law should influence our response” in the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel.

The article discusses Russia’s alleged hack of the DNC and whether it classifies as an “act of war” under international laws and norms. The authors conclude that measured and proportionate responses, founded in the rule of law, are the soundest long-term strategy for dealing with this attack.  Quantifying what justifiably constitutes ‘measured and proportionate’ is the challenge that remains ahead.

“A New Focus on Law Firm Cybersecurity” publishes in the Legal Executive Institute

On January 11, 2017, Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie published “A New Focus on Law Firm Cybersecurity” on the Legal Executive Institute blog. Richard Borden, Counsel of Robinson+Cole and a specialist in cybersecurity risk management, contributed to this blog post.

Law firms have long held a hallowed position in the corporate world, as the preeminent keeper of confidences. But the frequency with which law firms are falling victim to data breaches and hacks should leave clients questioning their firm’s data security. Due to their trusted position in the business world, law firms have become a prime target for cyber criminals, and without adequate data security confidential client information can fall into the hands of a wide variety of bad actors.

“The Neutral Corner: Recapturing the Benefits of Predictive Coding by Using an eDiscovery Special Master”

On December 19, 2016, Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie published the third article in his column “The Neutral Corner” on Thomson Reuters’ Legal Executive Institute blog. The article is titled “The Neutral Corner: Recapturing the Benefits of Predictive Coding by Using an eDiscovery Special Master”.

Following a New York federal court’s approval of predictive coding in the Rio Tinto case, attorneys are increasingly using predictive coding to expedite discovery when faced with large quantities of documents.

While predictive coding can save significant time and money in discovery, parties often disagree on the methods and protocols for implementing it, potentially negating the time and cost savings. Courts or the involved parties may want to push for the appointment of an eDiscovery Special Master as early in a case’s lifecycle as possible to mediate protocol disputes and provide guidance on technical issues, hopefully recapturing the benefits of predictive coding and saving the parties time and money.

The graphic When to Use a Technical E-Discovery Special Master further illustrates the questions to ask to determine whether you may need to retain a Technical E-Discovery Special Master.

“Is Cyberinsurance Really Worth It? Using ADR to Resolve Cyberattack Disputes” publishes on Law.com

On October 27th, 2016, Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie published “Is Cyberinsurance Really Worth It? Using ADR to Resolve Cyberattack Disputes” on Law.com. The article is co-authored with Andrew Nadolna, a mediator and arbitrator with JAMS, who has 25 years of experience in the insurance industry as a claims executive and litigator.

While strengthening a company’s cybersecurity posture can make a considerable difference, companies must also prepare for the unfortunate inevitability of a successful cyberattack. Recognizing this risk, companies have turned to cyberinsurance as a tool for mitigating their cybersecurity risks. Unfortunately, uncertainty still exists regarding how courts will interpret this relatively new type of insurance policy. Accordingly, contractual alternatives such as arbitration or mediation are often the most efficient means for resolving cyber coverage disputes.

 

“How prepared are law firms to face cyber security threats?”

On October 17th, 2016, Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie was interviewed by Thomson Reuters on the question, “How prepared are law firms to face cyber security threats?

Thomson Reuters’ Joseph Raczynski spoke with Mr. Garrie on the cyber security issues facing law firms today, in the wake of the April 2016 hacking of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. Questions posed included “Why do hackers and other cyber criminals target law firms?” and “What steps can law firms take to get prepared to deal with these threats?”

The white paper Client Data: Secure as the Weakest Link, published with Thomson Reuters, further discusses these issues. It was co-authored Daniel Garrie and Rhea Siers, scholar in residence at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security and an adjunct professor at George Washington University.

“The Neutral Corner: How to Effectively Use a Technical E-Discovery Neutral” publishes in The Legal Executive Institute

On October 10th, 2016, Executive Managing Partner Daniel Garrie published the second article in his column “The Neutral Corner” on Thomson Reuters’ Legal Executive Institute blog. The article is titled “How to Effectively Use a Technical E-Discovery Neutral”.

The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure put a greater responsibility on the parties and their attorneys to actively manage the discovery process and meaningfully meet and confer regarding the scope and practicability of collecting relevant data. This article discusses how a Technical E-Discovery Neutral helps the parties and fact-finder in charge of the case answer the questions of what to collect and how to collect it.

The graphic When to Use a Technical E-Discovery Special Master further illustrates the questions to ask to determine whether you may need to retain a Technical E-Discovery Neutral.