San Jose sues Pillsbury Winthrop over confidential documents
Asking nicely doesnt seem to be working for San Jose, Calif., so the city is taking it to the next levelfiling suit against Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, claiming the law firm refuses to give back confidential documents the city accidentally handed over.
October 08, 2012 at 05:56 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Asking nicely doesn't seem to be working for San Jose, Calif., so the city is taking it to the next level—filing suit against Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, claiming the law firm refuses to give back confidential documents the city accidentally handed over.
Between December 2011 and June, San Jose released various documents to the firm in accordance with the California Public Records Act. But in August, the city realized those documents contained 11 email chains with information that was confidential, such as attorney-client privileged communication. City officials requested, via letters, phone calls and emails, that the confidential documents be returned to San Jose. The law firm has refused.
Last week, San Jose asked the Santa Clara County Superior Court to force Pillsbury to return the documents and to prevent it from distributing the confidential information. The court responded Friday morning by issuing a temporary order preventing the firm from disclosing or using the documents. The court also set a hearing for the case on Nov. 6.
According to Thomson Reuters, the reasons Pillsbury will not return the documents to San Jose are unclear.
Read more recent law firm news stories on InsideCounsel:
$17 million malpractice suit against DLA Piper dismissed
Court vacates $10.6 million malpractice judgment against Bryan Cave
HSBC sues Troutman Sanders for negligence
Former client sues Ropes & Gray for professional negligence
CFPB sues Los Angeles law firm
3M sues former law firm for its role in a lawsuit against the company
Watts Water sues Sidley Austin over FCPA error
Crowell & Moring settles Arntsen embezzlement suits
Court reinstates $500 million lawsuit against K&L Gates
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Juror No. 3 Challenges Florida Defense Counsel During Closing Argument
- 2Fourth Circuit Seeks More Legal Briefs in Unresolved N.C. Supreme Court Election
- 3iRobot Picks Up Law Firm Partner as New Legal Chief
- 4Baker McKenzie Spins Off AI-Powered Risk Management Tool SCOREalytics as Independent Business
- 5Edison Hit With Lawsuits Over Devastating Eaton Fire in Los Angeles
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
