Eric P. Mandel

November 4, 2020

California Voters Approve the CPRA

While most of America, and the world, have been focused on the U.S. Presidential election, voters in California have quietly approved the most sweeping privacy and data protection law in the United States. The California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA” or the “Act”) will be replacing the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) that just came into effect earlier this year.
August 11, 2020

ITAR Projects are Not Limited to US Citizens

Handling eDiscovery on matters that require compliance with the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) can be a challenge.[1] For those who have yet to experience working under ITAR, it comes into play when one or more parties (or a non-party) to a litigation is a US Government contractor, particularly in the national security or military/defense industry, and is responsible for the licensing, export or import of materials and services governed by the Arms Export Control Act.[2] Law firms and discovery service providers who wish to take on ITAR matters must fulfill the regulatory demands limiting who can access this potentially sensitive information. One key component is ensuring that the companies working on the matter are incorporated to do business in the United States, and relatedly, that all staff who will have access case documents meet the definition of “U.S. person” in ITAR.
July 14, 2020

Greedy Plaintiff Gets Stuck with a Big Discovery Tab

Discovery is not an all-you-can-consume buffet. Yet the temptation to demand endless refills of document productions can be irresistible for some requesting parties. This is particularly true in asymmetrical litigation in U.S. federal court where a responding party is generally responsible to pay their own costs of discovery. This was the case for Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, where the court ordered plaintiff Larry Lawson—the former CEO of defendant Spirit AeroSystems—to pick up a $600,000 tab for a TAR 2.0 review conducted by Spirit at Lawson’s demand.
April 9, 2020
privilege subject matter waiver

Privilege Subject Matter Waiver Under FRE 502

Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (“Rule 502”) addresses the evidentiary issues arising from the disclosure of attorney-client privilege or work product information in discovery, inadvertent or otherwise. Litigators are urged to include obtain a Rule 502(d) non-waiver order in all federal court litigation and comparable non-waiver orders in state court matters. As we have previously noted, a simple and properly drafted Rule 502(d) Order can provide producing parties with significant, material protection against privilege waiver in the instant proceeding as well as in any other federal or state proceeding. While more and more litigants have heeded this advice, the recent matter of RTC Industries. v. Fasteners for Retail demonstrates the importance of properly drafting of a Rule 502(d) order, particularly in patent infringement matters wherein one or more parties may be considering relying on an “advice of counsel” defense.