2022 – Page 2 – Electronic Discovery Law

New Data Privacy Considerations Heighten the Need for Attention to Records Management and Information Governance Practices

Oct 21 2022

Information governance and records management are important considerations for all organizations. New data and documents are generated at ever-increasing rates through the normal (and “new normal”) course of business, and these data and documents must be maintained for different periods of time to satisfy their business and legal compliance purposes. With regard to legally-mandated retention requirements, certain business sectors (such as banking institutions, aviation and maritime companies, and businesses operating within the scope of federal Department of Energy regulations) are subject to record retention and reporting obligations that extend beyond those applicable to other types of organizations. Also, there may be insurance, contractual, and other considerations applicable to certain types of records that impact the period of time they should be maintained in the ordinary course of business. Finally, the need to preserve records potentially relevant to known or reasonably anticipated legal proceedings can create additional record preservation burdens on an organization.

K&L Gates Arbitration World Podcast: Virtual Collaboration Tools and their e-Discovery Implications in Arbitration and Litigation

Oct 14 2022

In a recent K&L Gates Arbitration World podcast, Julie Anne Halter (a partner in our Seattle office and co-chair of our e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) practice group) and Martin King (a partner in our London office who focuses on international arbitration and complex commercial litigation and disputes) discussed virtual collaboration tools like Slack and Microsoft Teams and the e-discovery challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls these tools may present in the context of arbitration and litigation

2023 Best Lawyers in America Recognitions

Oct 07 2022

Congratulations to our very own Julie Anne Halter and Thomas J. Smith, the co-chairs of our e-Discovery Analysis & Techology (“e-DAT”) practice group, and two of more than 270 K&L Gates lawyers named among the 2023 Best Lawyers in America®!

Please see our firm announcement regarding these rankings, as well as our LinkedIn post for more information.

iMessages Are No Longer Immutable: The Ability to Edit and Unsend iMessages Provided by Apple iOS 16 Spurs New E-Discovery Questions

Sep 23 2022

On September 16th, Apple released iOS 16, which now allows users to edit or unsend iMessages. A sender can edit an iMessage up to five times within fifteen minutes after the message is sent. A sender can also unsend an iMessage within two minutes after the message is sent. Recipients of such messages receive an alert that the iMessage was unsent or edited, but do not see the specific changes.

Substance Use Disorder Patient Records: Important Limitations on Disclosure in Litigation or Otherwise

Sep 17 2022

Under 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2, federal law requires “records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance use disorder education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States” to be maintained confidentially and disclosed only as provided under this law. Accordingly, such substance abuse treatment programs and related third-party payers and administration entities should be aware of the restrictions on disclosure and use of patient records relating to certain substance use disorders under this statute and 42 C.F.R. Part 2. Violations of this regulation may be subject to criminal penalty. Significantly, this regulation does not compel disclosure of such records even if they fall into permissible circumstances, but rather indicates circumstances in which these records may be disclosed. Patient consent and/or a court order authorizing disclosure of patient information otherwise prohibited by this regulation is necessary in order to provide this information in response to a subpoena or other legal requirement.

Substance Use Disorder Patient Records: Important Limitations on Disclosure in Litigation or Otherwise

Sep 16 2022

Chinese Data Security, Data Protection, and Cybersecurity Law: A Recent Enforcement Action Resulting in Large Fines Highlight Risks

Sep 08 2022

Electronic discovery for US litigation and legal proceedings often implicates data outside the US. As data privacy and protection laws evolved around the globe, it’s critical to understand the limitations obstacles that may arise when collecting, processing, reviewing, and producing such data. China’s Data Security Law (“DSL”) and Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”), both enacted in 2021, have received heightened attention following China’s imposition of fines totaling roughly $1.2 billion in light of violations of these laws and its Cybersecurity Law (“CSL,” enacted in 2017) by Didi, China’s largest ride-sharing service provider. China’s DSL and PIPL are particularly noteworthy of their potential application to data processing and transfer actions that may occur both during the ordinary course of business and in response to litigation in other jurisdictions, such as the United States.

New Risks of the Evolving Workforce

Aug 30 2022

K&L Gates recently hosted a series of webinars covering potential legal and regulatory implications businesses must consider as a result of the now common hybrid work setting. The cross-practice series focused on compliance issues from a Tax, Data Protection, Privacy, and Security, e-Discovery Analysis and Technology, and Labor, Employment, and Workplace Safety perspective.

Webinar recordings and associated materials are available on the K&L Gates HUB.

Calhoun v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. 2022)

Jun 06 2022

Key Insight: This matter relates to the court’s order to compel and order to show cause as to why Google should not be sanctioned for interfering with the production of third-party Ernst & Young (E&Y) documents ordered by the court. Plaintiff subpoenaed E&Y for documents relating to the valuation of certain user information. Google moved for a protective order and the court granted in part and denied in part the motion, narrowly tailoring the allowed requests. E&Y then identified 6,322 responsive documents and Google reviewed and deselected 6,232 documents on the basis of relevance, resulting in E&Y’s production of 90 documents. Google maintains it was justified in working with E&Y to cull irrelevant documents from the final production. The court noted: “Googles proffered ‘justification,’ primarily that the documents reflect highly confidential financial information not relevant to the claims in suit, was heard and rejected by this Court twice.” The court ordered Google to pay plaintiff’s fees and costs for having to bring the motion to compel.

Nature of Case: Data Privacy Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Financial documents

Case Summary

Archive - 2022