Amazon-Virginia Agreement Contains 'Heads-Up' Requirement for Public Record Requests
Amazon's agreement with Virginia is legal but has caused concerns over public record transparency and Amazon's ability to silence requests.
November 14, 2018 at 01:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Virginia will have to give Amazon a heads-up—and two days to respond—to any request of public records about the company, according to the memorandum of understanding between the two parties.
Amazon and Virginia's memorandum states that Virginia must give written notice of a pending disclosure and provide the company no less than two business days to “seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy.”
Andrew Bodoh, a senior associate attorney at Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, doesn't see the agreement “as inherently problematic, because the major concern [is if Virginia will ] disclose all of the information they have within a timely manner consistent with the requirement.”
Bodoh said that, as long as Amazon is given two days and the citizen requesting information is given a response in a timely manner of five days, Virginia can comply with both the contract and state requirements on public record requests. But Virginia could be stuck between complying with its memorandum of understanding or public record requirements, if a public record is needed sooner.
It's not the first time Amazon has put such a requirement in an agreement. While there doesn't seem to be a similar requirement in its memorandum with New York City, where it's planning to open another new headquarters, the Columbia Journalism Review reported in February that Amazon and Facebook have both used so-called heads-up agreements in recent contracts.
Bodoh said such requirements may be a way for Amazon to prevent other tech companies from accessing competitive information. But it's also possible that Amazon could sue those seeking information in an attempt to secure company information, even if they don't have strong ground to keep it confidential.
Under the memorandum of understanding, Virginia also must “disclose only such information as is required under the applicable law,” cooperate with Amazon “in responding to any such records request” and “limit disclosure, refuse to disclose, and redact and/or omit portions of materials to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.”
“That's not illegal but it is completely counter to the policy statement [of] Virginia FOIA, which is to interpret provisions liberally and exemptions narrowly,” said Megan Rhyne, the director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government. Rhyne was a former freelance editor for the National Law Journal and opinions editor for Texas Lawyer.
Rhyne added that this isn't something she's seen often, if ever, and that it could complicate accessing what once would have been easily accessible documents related to Amazon.
“Adding something to say that we're going to use this to the maximum extent allowable, it's not illegal but it is counter to this notion that you should be using a light touch rather than a heavy-handed one,” she said.
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
© 2024 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 AllTrending Stories
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