Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

Social Links: Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North

Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

LinkedIN

A random Twitter account tags a Japanese company and badmouths it in a series of tweets. Because the tweets are tagged, a search of the company’s name on Twitter will display the tweets with the negative comments among the search results. Upset over the tweets, the Japanese company wants to sue the tweeter in Japan. But how can it? The tweeter has not used his real name.This is where discovery under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1782" target="_blank" rel="noopener">28 U.S.C. § 1782</a> can help. Section 1782 provides a vehicle for companies or individuals seeking U.S. discovery in aid of foreign litigation—even if the litigation is merely contemplated and not yet commenced. Specifically, Section 1782 provides that a federal district court may grant an applicant the authority to issue subpoenas in the United States to obtain documents or testimony, including documents or testimony seeking to unmask an anonymous Internet poster to pursue defamation claims abroad.To pursue Section 1782 discovery, an applicant needs to establish:<ul><li>that the requested discovery is for use in an actual or contemplated proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal;</li><li>that the applicant is an “interested person” in that proceeding; and</li><li>that the person from whom the discovery is sought resides or is found in the district of the court where the applicant is making the application.</li></ul>If the applicant satisfies all of these factors, a district court has the discretion to grant or deny the application after considering the following factors, which the U.S. Supreme Court established in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/intel-corp-v-advanced-micro-devices-inc-4?page=267&sort=relevance&q=542%20U.S.%20241&p=1&tab=keyword&jxs=&type=case" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc.</a>:<ul><li>whether the discovery sought is within the foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional reach and, thus, accessible without Section 1782 aid;</li><li>the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal court judicial assistance;</li><li>whether the applicant’s request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States; and</li><li>whether the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome.</li></ul>For an applicant to obtain discovery under Section 1782, it does not need to meet all four factors. Also, no one factor is dispositive.Recently, judges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California—which has jurisdiction over Twitter because that tech company is headquartered in San Francisco—dealt with two cases in which Japanese parties sought to unmask malicious tweeters. The cases are <a href="https://casetext.com/case/in-re-ex-parte-application-of-yasuda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In re Yuichiro Yasuda</a> and <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2019mc80139/342836/21/0.pdf?ts=1574760665" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In re PGS Home Co.</a> In both cases, Twitter resisted discovery and moved to quash or modify subpoenas, citing, among other things, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In both cases, the courts found that the applicants had met the three statutory factors. Thus, the judges had the discretion to allow discovery to proceed. Each case boiled down to an analysis of the fourth Intel factor: whether the discovery requests were unduly intrusive or burdensome. On that question, the judges reached different conclusions.In both cases, the judges noted <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/182446/in-re-anonymous-online-speakers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. courts’ general recognition</a> of the importance of anonymous speech, noting that “the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without ‘fear of economic or official retaliation . . . [or] concern about social ostracism.’”Both judges noted that, in the context of Section 1782 discovery requests, courts have held that the First Amendment protects an anonymous speaker from being unmasked unless the applicant:<ul><li>identifies the missing defendant with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine that it is a real person subject to a lawsuit;</li><li>identifies all previous steps taken to locate and identify the elusive defendant;</li><li>demonstrates that the action against defendant can withstand a motion to dismiss; and</li><li>proves that the discovery is likely to lead to the identification of the defendant such that service of process would be possible.</li></ul>In In re Yuichiro Yasuda, the court found that the applicant satisfied all four requirements for good cause to permit Section 1782 discovery to unmask an anonymous tweeter. The court’s inquiry ended there. The judge denied Twitter’s motion to quash.However, a month later, in In re PGS Home Co., the court granted Twitter’s motion to quash because it found the applicant’s allegations would not survive a motion to dismiss. The court also found that unmasking the speaker would have a potential chilling effect on First Amendment liberties that would outweigh the harm the applicant would suffer from withholding the requested discovery.In Yasuda, the anonymous tweeter posted statements claiming a Japanese physician had sexual relations with a female patient who was in high school, which led to the patient’s attempted suicide. This was all tweeted on the page of a well-known radio DJ with over 10,000 followers. Thus, the judge did not have to dig deeply into Japanese law to conclude that, if false, the claim was likely actionable.In PGS, the anonymous tweeter claimed a Japanese construction company asked to be paid for work it did not perform and treated customers like complainers. Each of these comments came with a hashtag identifying the company. The court did not feel that was enough evidence to conclude the applicant’s claims could survive a motion to dismiss. Oddly, the judge, without explanation, appears to have evaluated whether the claim would survive a motion to dismiss a defamation claim under California law, rather than Japanese law.Although Twitter raised a potential chilling effect under the First Amendment in both cases, only the PGS court went on to address the issue. To weigh the potential chilling effect, courts in the district apply a two-part test:<ul><li>whether there is a “real evidentiary basis” for believing that the anonymous speaker has engaged in wrongful conduct that caused real harm to the party seeking discovery; and</li><li>if the threshold requirement outlined above is met, weighing the harm resulting from an order requiring disclosure compared to the harm resulting from an order denying the request.</li></ul>In PGS, the court concluded that the applicant failed to show a “real evidentiary basis” that the tweets caused real harm. The court found the statements and accusations to be nothing more than a simple “rant” by a dissatisfied customer. The court held that even if the tweets did cause real harm, the harm is outweighed by the First Amendment concerns.Interestingly, neither court addressed the nationality of the anonymous tweeters. In both of these cases, the statements were made in Japanese and targeted a Japanese individual or company. It seems quite likely that the anonymous posters are Japanese nationals living in Japan. <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.18.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">One court has recently held</a> that that the First Amendment protects the anonymous speech of foreign nationals on the basis that free speech protects the audience as well as the speaker, but there is scant case law on this question. Also, <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/reddit-commenters-fight-anonynmity-win-free-speech-and-fair-use" target="_blank" rel="noopener">that case involved an anonymous Reddit poster</a> who directed his criticism of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to a U.S. audience. Section 1782 applicants may still argue that First Amendment protections for anonymous speech should not apply to an individual who presumably lives in Japan and posted comments in Japanese that are alleged to have defamed a Japanese company under Japanese law. In other words, other than the use of Twitter’s platform, everything else, including the audience, has no connection with the United States.Because of the high concentration of social media and other Internet companies in the Bay Area, one can assume that these will not be the last cases filed in the Northern District of California using Section 1782 to unmask anonymous Internet posters. We will see how the law develops in this area.

L.W. v. Snap Inc.,  675 F. Supp. 3d 1087 

Wamai v. Industrial Bank of Korea , 2021 WL 3038402 

In re Maxus Energy Corp.

In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.

James Paul McCartney v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC

NFL Enterprises LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

Change Healthcare Operations, LLC v WebMD Health Corp. 2017 WL 6610411  

Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.

Komag, Inc. v. Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.

Asante Techs. Inc. v. PMC–Sierra, Inc.

Biovail Corp. v. S.A.C. Capital Mgmt. 2009 WL 2844404 

Multi–Faceted Investigation of University Grants

Confidential International Arbitrations

lawrence_j_blog_150x150.png

lawrence_j_common_640x280.jpg

lawrence_j_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lawrence_j_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lawrence_j_social_600x600.jpg

Alex advises on all aspects of complex commercial litigation in federal and state trial and appellate courts and in arbitration. He has represented U.S. and international clients in actions involving 

J. Lawrence

J. Alexander Lawrence

gettyimages-1182386433_small-300x300.jpg

Foreign Companies Can Use 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Unmask Anonymous Internet Posters

Foreign Companies Can Use 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Unmask Anonymous Internet Posters

A random Twitter account tags a Japanese company and badmouths it in a series of tweets. Because the tweets are tagged, a search of the company’s name on Twitte

E-mails. Text messages. Instant messages. Social media. The digital age has given birth to powerful new ways to communicate that have transformed how we live and conduct business. But the proliferation of communication options has come with increased exposure to claims in litigation of withholding, hiding, destroying and losing evidence.A reminder of the increasing danger of the digital age in discovery recently arose in the New York state attorney general’s investigation of ExxonMobil’s research into the causes and effects of climate change.After receiving documents from Exxon pursuant to a subpoena, the state attorney general informed a New York court that it had discovered that former Exxon CEO and Chairman Rex Wayne Tillerson had <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/rex-tillerson-climate-change-email-alias-exxon-mobile-567435" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">used an alias email address on the Exxon system under the pseudonym “Wayne Tracker”</a> from at least 2008 through 2015.In the Exxon matter, the state attorney general claimed that emails from the Tracker email address contained information responsive to its subpoena, but that neither Exxon nor its outside law firm had disclosed to the state attorney general that the Tracker email address belonged to Tillerson and that it appeared that some of the arguably responsive Tracker emails had not been properly saved and produced.Exxon, in its reply to the court, claimed that there was nothing improper with Tillerson’s use of the Tracker email address, which it <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tillerson-email-idUSKBN16O04O" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said</a> “allowed a limited group of senior executives to send time-sensitive messages to Tillerson that received priority over the normal daily traffic that crossed the desk of a busy CEO. The purpose was efficiency, not secrecy.”Exxon’s lawyers also <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-17/exxon-says-some-wayne-tracker-emails-may-have-been-lost" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">suggested</a> that a technical glitch may have prevented automatically preserving emails from the Tracker account.Tillerson is hardly the first or only CEO who has used more than one email address. As The Wall Street Journal recently <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-executives-use-numerous-email-addresses-but-few-adopt-alter-egos-1489612668" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>, high-profile CEOs whose email inboxes can be overwhelmed often use another email address that allows a more select group of people to reach them without their email message perhaps getting lost in the CEO’s inbox.While use of an alias email is an understandable and perhaps necessary inbox management tool, the Exxon matter should serve as a reminder of how the expanding array of communication tools can cause issues in litigation. Even if a secondary email address serves a legitimate purpose, if it is not searched and preserved during discovery and sufficiently disclosed and produced, it can, at minimum, allow the opposing party to try to bias the judge and create advantageous press.Indeed, shortly after the New York state attorney general raised the Tracker email issue with the court, it was widely covered in the press. Of course, much more serious consequences can result from mishandling of electronically stored information (ESI).<h4>Severe Consequences</h4>In a criminal investigation, mishandling of ESI can influence charging decisions by prosecutors or expose defendants to further probes and charges of obstruction of justice.In civil litigation, a judge can impose sanctions or give an adverse inference charge to a jury, which essentially instructs the jury that it would be proper for them to infer that the missing evidence would have been harmful to the party who failed to preserve it.To be sure, it is not easy to obtain an adverse inference. Effective December 2015, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) were amended to address the failure to preserve ESI. The changes were made, <a href="http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/court-says-rule-37-e-doesn-t-apply-when-78082/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according to the Advisory Committee</a>, to take account for the “serious problems resulting from the continued exponential growth” of ESI and the differing standards among circuit courts for imposing sanctions. “These developments have caused litigants to expend excessive effort and money on preservation in order to avoid the risk of severe sanctions if a court finds they did not do enough,” the Advisory Committee <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37">wrote</a> in its notes to the 2015 amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).Under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the new Rule 37(e) of the FRCP</a>, it first must be established that the ESI “should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.” As the Advisory Committee <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">noted</a>, since “electronically stored information often exists in multiple locations, loss from one source may be harmless when substitute information can be found elsewhere.” If that first requirement is satisfied, then a court may impose measures “no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.”For more serious sanctions, the rule provides that a court must find that a “party acted with intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.” If that intent is established, then a court may “(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.” Previously, some courts had imposed severe sanctions for negligence and gross negligence. The new rule seeks to end that practice.<h4>New Rule in Practice</h4>The new rule already has had a significant impact.Take, for instance, the July 2016 opinion in GN Netcom v. Plantronics, a case alleging violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, as well as tortious interference with business relations against Plantronics over its program for distributing its headsets. At issue in GN Netcom were thousands of emails intentionally deleted by a senior-level Plantronics executive who had responsibility for a Plantronics’ headset distribution program that was central to the underlying claims in the case. Such executive also encouraged other employees to delete emails as well.As recounted in the court’s opinion, Plantronics argued sanctions for the deleted emails were unwarranted, noting that the company “went to great lengths to ensure that its employees were aware of and understood their preservation obligations,” including issuing multiple litigation holds and conducting training sessions to ensure compliance.Plantronics also claimed that upon learning of the deleted emails, it “immediately took steps to preserve documents and prevent any further loss of data, and to recover whatever missing data it could.”These efforts, Plantronics asserted, were proof that it took the requisite responsible steps to preserve ESI and that it did not intend to deprive GN Netcom of evidence.But in his opinion, U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark disagreed and found “Plantronics’ extensive document preservation efforts do not absolve it of all responsibility for the failure of a member of its senior management to comply with his document preservation obligations.” Judge Stark also wrote that he was “not convinced that Plantronics took all the reasonable steps it could have taken to recover deleted emails.”The court in Plantronics ordered a $3 million punitive monetary sanction against Plantronics as well “instructions to the jury it may draw an adverse inference that emails destroyed by Plantronics would have been favorable to GN’s case and/or unfavorable to Plantronics’ defense.”Under the new rule, a showing of bad intent is not required to obtain less severe remedies. For instance, in <a href="http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020161207686/SECURITY%20ALARM%20FINANCING%20ENTERPRISES,%20L.P.%20v.%20ALARM%20PROTECTION%20TECHNOLOGY,%20LLC" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Security Alarm Financing v. Alarm Protection Technology</a>, a lawsuit between home security competitors about the alleged poaching of customers, a district court judge in Alaska considered a motion for sanctions for customer call recordings that had been lost by the plaintiff.The court concluded that the evidence prejudiced the defendant and that the plaintiff had failed to take steps to preserve the recordings. But based on a “murky” record involving discussions between the parties over what they agreed needed to be produced, the court wrote it was “not persuaded that the failure to preserve the recordings . . . was done with the intent to deprive APT of the recordings.” Accordingly, instead of ordering an adverse inference, the court allowed the jury to hear about the spoliation of evidence and precluded the plaintiff from using 150 saved call recordings that were favorable to its case.<h4>Clear Protocols Needed</h4>These recent cases demonstrate how the digital age exposes litigants to potentially serious setbacks in litigation. Adverse inference jury instructions—among the most severe sanctions—have been made tougher to obtain by recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which now require a showing of intent to deprive a party of information. But, it is important for companies to recognize that a showing of bad intent by just one of its employees can be attributed to the organization.Even if bad intent is not established, mishandling ESI still negatively can affect the outcome of a case in less severe but crucial ways.The bottom line: As new communications technologies continue to expand, it is important for companies to establish clear protocols for preserving and disclosing relevant content and using those protocols to avoid costly court setbacks.<h4 style="text-align: center;">*    *    *</h4>Reprinted with permission from the June 6th, 2017 issue of the New York Law Journal. © 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

cohen_carrie_blog_150x150.png

cohen_carrie_common_640x280.jpg

cohen_carrie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

cohen_carrie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

cohen_carrie_social_600x600.jpg

Carrie H. Cohen, partner, has deep experience in white collar defense, FCPA compliance, federal prosecutions, workplace misconduct  and securities enforcement.

Carrie H. Cohen

Carrie H. Cohen | White Collar Crime + FCPA Lawyer

Carrie H. Cohen has a distinguished record of success in the courtroom handling high‑stakes litigation, with a particular focus on white-collar and securities cases. She is the co-chair of the Women’s Strategy Committee.

Carrie Cohen

Digital Age Expands Communication but Creates Discovery, Litigation Pitfalls