When Local Courts Get Hit by Cyberattacks, Who's Liable?
Unlike private companies, government agencies that suffer a cyberattack can rely on immunity protections to block most legal actions, lawyers say.
June 03, 2019 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
Last week, the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania shut down Philadelphia's court website, including its docket tracking and litigation filing features, and blocked court employees from accessing their work email. A city spokesperson said the shutdowns were a precautionary measure after a “virus intrusion” was found on court computers.
Meanwhile, Baltimore is facing its own cybersecurity woes as the city begins to go back online after city employees' work email, the property tax portal, and water bill and parking ticket payment systems were inaccessible for a nearly a month due to a ransomware.
The growing number of local governments targeted by cyberattacks highlights that data breaches are not just the problem of private entities but a threat to the public sector, too.
However, governments operate under different liability than other breached entities. Any civil litigation over a court system's data breach, after all, would most likely be tossed because of the immunity provided to state, federal and municipal governments.
“Cyberattacks on government agencies are increasingly a problem we are seeing, particularly with state and city government that may not have the same defenses to protect against such threats,” said Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Alexander Southwell. Notwithstanding those challenges, Southwell noted federal and state governments have sovereign immunity and typically can't be sued for a data security incident.
“If a court is supposed to file something under seal and a court clerk messes up and puts a filing on the public record, there's no liability for the court system for that disclosure largely because of sovereign immunity,” and that immunity also extends to cyber-induced data breaches, he explained.
Likewise, municipalities have governmental immunity from tort suits, making the road toward legal action after a municipality's data breach just as daunting as prevailing against the state or federal government.
However, Gary Wickert, a Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer insurance trial lawyer and partner, noted that immunity is generally waived when a government agency is acting in a “discretionary” matter, such as when a government's action was deemed “less for the public good for everyone but more proprietary in nature.” Still, Wickert said it was unlikely a court would find a state, federal or municipal's data breach involved a discretionary act.
Although a suit against the government faces an uphill battle, such immunity doesn't extend to a government's outsourced cybersecurity vendors.
“Courts can say to Company X, 'You were responsible for protecting our systems and you failed; we will hold you liable,'” Southwell said.
While the cloak of immunity stretches across a wide assortment of government entities, the cyberthreats aimed at those agencies are only intensifying. Indeed, municipalities' trove of personal and sensitive information and their smaller cybersecurity budgets could lead to increased cyberattacks, said Fenwick & West of counsel Hanley Chew, who previously was vice president at Stroz Friedberg, a cybersecurity and risk management firm.
“I think there's a definite concern that computer systems and networks of local municipalities might be more at risk because they don't necessarily have the funds to properly update their system networks,” Chew noted. “That would be a concern because those municipalities probably have a lot of personal, private information.”
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