Leonard Deutchman

February 13, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series examining new Rule 37(e).

By Leonard Deutchman

8 minute read

January 05, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Looking back at 2015, we see that a remarkable number of events took place, problems surfaced and trends emerged regarding e-discovery and the creation and usage of electronically stored information (ESI) in general.

By Leonard Deutchman

10 minute read

January 04, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Looking back at 2015, we see that a remarkable number of events took place, problems surfaced and trends emerged regarding e-discovery and the creation and usage of electronically stored information (ESI) in general.

By Leonard Deutchman

10 minute read

December 01, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

As I am sure many readers are well aware, on Oct. 6, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the protections of individual data users' privacy under the Safe Harbor program were insufficient to protect the privacy rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and so invalidated the program. The Safe Harbor program, implementing an agreement between the United States and the European Union, is one under which entities seeking to bring data from the European Union to the United States that contains information personal to protected EU data subjects must comply with rigorous security procedures and so certify to the Federal Trade Commission. The court found that because the Safe Harbor agreement between the United States and the European Union did not prevent the National Security Agency from accessing data transferred from the European Union, and because the United States provided no legal recourse for individuals whose data was not properly protected, the Safe Harbor program was not sufficient to protect the privacy of EU subjects.

By Leonard Deutchman

10 minute read

November 30, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

As I am sure many readers are well aware, on Oct. 6, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the protections of individual data users' privacy under the Safe Harbor program were insufficient to protect the privacy rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and so invalidated the program. The Safe Harbor program, implementing an agreement between the United States and the European Union, is one under which entities seeking to bring data from the European Union to the United States that contains information personal to protected EU data subjects must comply with rigorous security procedures and so certify to the Federal Trade Commission. The court found that because the Safe Harbor agreement between the United States and the European Union did not prevent the National Security Agency from accessing data transferred from the European Union, and because the United States provided no legal recourse for individuals whose data was not properly protected, the Safe Harbor program was not sufficient to protect the privacy of EU subjects.

By Leonard Deutchman

10 minute read

October 13, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide, No. 14-3514 (3d Cir. August 24, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's denial of Wyndham's motion to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's complaint under the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." The "unfair or deceptive acts" of which Wyndham was accused involved cybersecurity practices so lax as to allow for repeated, successful hacks that allowed the intruders access to clients' credit card and other personal information. Although the FTC had been turning its attention to cybersecurity issues since 2005, the Third Circuit's opinion represents the strongest judicial acceptance that the FTC Act can be used to allow the FTC to look at cybersecurity practices as "unfair or deceptive acts." What is perhaps most interesting about the opinion is what it assumes: As cybersecurity becomes just another trade practice, the chasm between "normal stuff" and "computer stuff" grows more narrow and shallow.

By Leonard Deutchman

10 minute read

August 25, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In NuVasive v. Madsen Medical, No. 3:13-cv-02077-BTM-RBB (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2015), the defendants moved for sanctions, claiming spoliation for destruction of a type of electronically stored information that has grown quite prominent in personal communications but not as much in business ones: text messages. The opinion illustrates how, even as the technology grows, the legal issues remain tangled.

By Leonard Deutchman

10 minute read

August 24, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In , No. 3:13-cv-02077-BTM-RBB (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2015), the defendants moved for sanctions, claiming spoliation for destruction of a type of electronically stored information that has grown quite prominent in personal communications but not as much in business ones: text messages. The opinion illustrates how, even as the technology grows, the legal issues remain tangled.

By Leonard Deutchman

10 minute read

August 04, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

HR 699, the Email Privacy Act, which would make significant changes to update the Stored Communications Act, was presented at a listening session hosted by the House Judiciary Committee on June 25.

By Leonard Deutchman

9 minute read

August 03, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

HR 699, the Email Privacy Act, which would make significant changes to update the Stored Communications Act, was presented at a listening session hosted by the House Judiciary Committee on June 25.

By Leonard Deutchman

9 minute read