e-Lessons Learned

The previously filed court opinion by Judge Scheindlin involving the case Nat’l Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency has been withdrawn. Significantly, the opinion stated that metadata that is maintained by an organization is assumed to be producible under the Freedom Of Information Act, unless the organization is able to prove that the data is not “readily reproducible.” The opinion also specified guidelines indicating the appropriate amount of metadata that should supplement any collection of digital record.

This opinion has since been withdrawn and Judge Scheindlin expressly stated, in so doing, that “it is the intent of this Court that the decision shall have no precedential value in this lawsuit or in any other lawsuit” and reasoned that it “was not based on a full and developed record.”

Click here for a copy of the order.

A survey of IT practitioners conducted by the Ponemon Institute and Juniper Networks suggests that cyber attacks have recently become more harsh and recurrent. At least 90% of the IT practitioners surveyed claimed that they had experienced one or more cyber breaches within the last year, and 89% of these respondents could not identify the source of these breaches. Interestingly, employee mobile devices and laptop computers have been recognized as the top devices used in the unleashing of cyber attacks against a company. This survey suggests that ordinary network security methods are inadequate and companies need to make enhancements in order to prevent such cyber crimes.

According to nextgov.com, Tuesday’s Senate Banking Committee hearing on cybersecurity in the financial sector showed the senate’s critical attitude toward institution’s negligence in informing its customers of security breaches they experience in a timely manner. Although waiting to release sensitive information regarding security breaches may prove to be beneficial to the federal agents involved in these investigations, customers should be notified as soon as possible so they can take action to safeguard themselves from future attacks. In response to the increased number of attacks, the White House has presented legislative language that would require national notification of a security breach to the government and affected customers within 60 days of discovering a cyber attack. The seriousness of these cyber threats has forced government officials to set forth a new legislative race on cybersecurity related laws.

The government itself is also not immune from these cyber attacks, as suggested by the recent attacks on the IMF, Senate, and CIA. The group responsible for many of these attacks, Lulz Security, has teamed up with Anonymous, another team of computer hackers, to begin a cyber war against governments and companies around the world, which they call “Operation Anti-Security.” According to a New York Times article, both groups have been interacting frequently via Twitter. Also via Twitter, Lulzsec has offered to help Sega in tracking down the hackers responsible for its recent cyber security breach. Although the group was deemed responsible for cyber attacks against Sony and Nintendo, its Twitter post showcased their loyalty to Sega’s Dreamcast system. The Sega breach compromised personal information of 1.3 million customers, including email addresses, passwords and birth dates. While financial information was safe, Sega Pass has been shutdown since the breach for security and investigation purposes and customers were promptly notified. The use of social networks, like Twitter, as a means of communication between hackers raises many questions surrounding the role of social media in security breaches. The unexpected shutdown of Netflix this Father’s Day left many believing that it was another cyber attack (see article on ibtimes.com). However, Netflix has not officially indicated the cause of the temporary outage. The frequency and severity of recent cyber crimes has left the world in a frenzy and upon the occurrence of any technological failure, people are not hesitant to suspect yet another cyber attack.

For sources, read:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/hackers-declare-war-on-government-agencies/?pagemode=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/technology/20iht-sega20.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/165731/20110620/netflix-streaming-cyber-attack-hack-lulzsec-sega-anonymous-twitter-netflicks-net-flix-netflex-netfli.htm

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110621_7982.php?oref=topstory

http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/18850/cyber-attacks-grow-more-severe-frequent-say-it-practitioners/

So you’re in the discovery stage of litigation and you make a request but the other side won’t produce. No problem you think, I’ll just subpoena ‘em. WRONG.

In Richardson v. Sexual Assault/Spouse Abuse Research Ctr., Inc., Patrick Richardson filed a complaint against the Sexual Assault/Spouse Abuse Research Center (“Research Center”) alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortuous interference with Richardson and his ex-wife Sheri Richardson’s divorce proceedings, and gender discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Maryland State Constitution. Continue reading »

It is common practice in litigation between industry competitors that litigants will seek protective orders from the court to ensure that in the exchange of discovery, neither party’s trade secrets are revealed or inadvertently made public. It is also common practice for companies to go to great lengths to ensure that they do not destroy any evidence that might be pertinent to the litigation. One method used in preservation is an email filter, whereby incoming and outgoing emails with certain words are copied into a drop box without the sender or receiver ever knowing. This is generally a very effective method. But what happens if a sender’s email has a return receipt on it? Is the jig up? Or even worse, what if the sender, although not a party to the litigation, is not supposed to receive correspondence regarding the litigation because there is a protective order in place?

Continue reading »

Reports have confirmed that Representative Anthony D. Weiner intends to resign amid the scandal sparked by an alleged breach of his Twitter account. Initially, Rep. Weiner indicated that hackers were to blame for disseminating a provocative photo (that may or may not have been of him) from his Twitter account. We refer to that as “the breach that wasn’t.”

But in other news, a recent actual security breach involving a major financial services company has left many questioning the safety of stored online personal information in general. Reportedly, the breach was caused by a group of sophisticated hackers who gained access to sensitive information concerning over 200,000 Citigroup customers through a particular vulnerability in the browser. Continue reading »

Be careful when you defend a civil suit that was triggered by a government investigation! When you respond to discovery requests and produce material which was previously not within the reach of the grand jury, the government can subpoena these documents! A civil protective order will not do you any good! The defendants in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas had to find that out the hard way. Continue reading »

Not only was Jannx scolded by the District Court on three separate issues, they are now responsible for significant legal fees, and lost a motion to protect their own data. It’s safe to say the Indiana District Court was not impressed with the Jannx legal team.

Basically, this case involves a dispute over pre-trial discovery motions between the plaintiff, Jannx Medical Systems and defendants, Methodist Hospital, Crothall Healthcare, Inc., and Propoco Professional Services. The Court issued an opinion and order on Defendant’s motion to get Jannx to comply with electronic discovery and Jannx’s motion to withhold electronic data from discovery by reason of trade secrets, etc. Continue reading »

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­In In re Stern, Virgie Arthur, mother of the late Anna Nicole Smith, alleged that Howard K. Stern, Smith’s former attorney, and others in the media (particularly television and internet gossip programs) had engaged in a conspiratorial effort to defame her and harm her efforts to maintain custody and visitation rights of Smith’s daughter. Arthur challenged Stern’s assertion that he was father to Smith’s newborn daughter, thereby causing Stern to engage in a conspiracy in which his sister, Bonnie, as well as additional parties (Nelda Turner, Lyndal Harrington and Theresa Stephens) found “dirt” on Arthur and then posted it on the internet. Further, Stern and his alleged conspirators had provided gossip website TMZ with a tape and transcript of an interview in which Smith accused Arthur of “being complicit in child abuse” committed against Smith when she was a child. Continue reading »

When confidential business information comes into play, it is imperative that parties diligently bargain to protect their interests. Once an agreement is reached the parties will be expected to uphold their side of the bargain based on the other side’s reliance. Continue reading »