Jones Day Apologizes for Botched Filing That Revealed Grand Jury Info
"We very much regret that this incident occurred and can assure the court that it will not happen again," Jones Day lawyers told a Virginia federal court.
September 13, 2019 at 04:44 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers from Jones Day on Friday apologized to a Virginia federal judge for exposing secret grand jury information in a court filing, an error the law firm attributed to a failure by the legal team to use certain software that is designed to "avoid such issues."
Jones Day attorneys are representing the drug company Indivior Inc., charged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia with the alleged fraudulent marketing of a prescription opioid. The company, contesting the Justice Department's charges, recently filed court papers arguing the case should be dismissed for alleged government misconduct.
The original filing, a reply memorandum, exposed testimony that was protected by grand jury secrecy rules, and a U.S. magistrate judge on Wednesday ordered Jones Day to explain how that happened, why the firm should not face sanctions and what's being done to prevent any subsequent mishaps.
"We very much regret that this incident occurred and can assure the court that it will not happen again," Cleveland-based Jones Day partner James Wooley said in Friday's filing. Wooley said co-counsel at the firm Gentry Locke submitted the filing at issue but "the redaction process for that pleading was entirely the responsibility of Jones Day."
Wooley said a team of Jones Day lawyers reviewed the court filing before it was submitted to the court to make sure any grand jury testimony had been redacted.
The filing appeared "fully" redacted, Wooley said. But it turned out that it was not redacted at all. A news reporter, Wooley said, "defeated" the redaction by copying the black-out boxes and pasting the text into a new document.
"This technical weakness in the redaction process was caused by the method of redaction, which involved Microsoft Word and printing to Adobe Acrobat, rather than the redaction software our law firm has in place that is specifically designed to avoid such issues," Wooley wrote. "The failure to use this software was inadvertent oversight."
The senior lawyers on the Indivior team, Wooley said Friday, "will make certain that all future redactions in this matter are made with the proper software to avoid such issues in the future."
Federal prosecutors are resisting Indivior's push to dismiss the indictment for alleged government misconduct. The company's claims are centered on the government telling the grand jury about the prior criminal conviction of a third-party doctor.
"Tellingly, Indivior has not even attempted to argue that the indictment does not present a case against it, or that the other facts alleged in the indictment, as well as the plethora of evidence presented to the grand jury, was insufficient for the grand jury to find probable cause," prosecutors said in August.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent had not immediately responded Friday afternoon to Jones Day's apology. Sargent had given the firm two weeks—until the end of September—to explain how the redaction error occurred.
Jones Day's filing came within days of the judge's show-cause order.
Jones Day's notice to the court is posted below:
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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