honorable

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

Interested in e-discovery education, but unsure where to begin? On The ESI Report, host Kelly Kubacki, Staff Attorney in the Legal Technologies division at Kroll Ontrack welcomes the Honorable David Waxse, United States Magistrate Judge in the District of Kansas, Ralph Losey, Partner and National e-Discovery Counsel at Jackson Lewis LLP and Rhea Frederick, Client Relationship Manager at Kroll Ontrack, to discuss an important topic for the legal and professional community a e-discovery education and why it is an absolutely critical undertaking. In the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Ben Kirk, Kroll Ontrack Legal Correspondent, explores the recent case of Play Visions, Inc. v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently spoke at Golden Gate University School of Law’s third annual Intellectual Property Distinguished Speaker Program, where he created a buzz when he shared his insight on technology today and how it has greatly impacted the First Amendment. Attorneys and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams welcome the Honorable Alex Kozinski to the program and talk about technology, bloggers, the First Amendment, his role as a Judge and a lot more.

From data dumps, to spoliation, to delay of litigation, ethics and e-discovery do not always go hand-in-hand. However, on this edition of Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome the Honorable Herbert B. Dixon, Jr., who sits on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to shed some light on the importance of ethics in e-discovery . Judge Dixon discusses the ethical rules which are most often violated in e-discovery, ethical issues surrounding the Pension Committee case, why ethics and e-discovery should be offered as a subject in law school and the unique issues in criminal law related to ethics and e-discovery.

The first constitutional workersa compensation law in the United States was enacted back in 1911, and in recognition of this milestone of law, Massachusetts will host a centennial commemoration in April of 2011. In this edition of Workersa Comp Matters, host Attorney Alan S. Pierce, welcomes the Honorable Richard S. Tirrell with the Department of Industrial Accidents and Attorney Joseph F. Agnelli, Jr., partner at Keches Law Group, P.C, to discuss the early origins of workersa compensation and look ahead to the Workersa Compensation Centennial 2011.

In this special edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report, co-hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell, take their show on the road to ABA TECHSHOW 2010 in Chicago and chat with the experts about the latest in legal technology. Dennis and Tom welcome some very special guests including: Natalie Kelly, the Honorable Herbert B. Dixon, Jr., Rodney Dowell, Paul Unger, Ernie Svenson and Jim Calloway, to share their insight from this popular legal technology expo. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennisa co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies. Be sure to watch this edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report video podcast!

The murder of a young woman in Massachusetts raises new questions about the laws and the legal system in cases involving abusive relationships. 19-year old Allison Myrick was stabbed to death – her ex-boyfriend charged with murder. Authorities and family members revealed details including two restraining orders which did not prevent this tragic crime. Attorneys and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams welcome Attorney Marsha Kazarosian from the Kazarosian Law Offices and the Honorable Judge Eugene M. Hyman from the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California, to explore what could have gone so terribly wrong. They will look at how the legal system, lawyers, legislators and others can better protect victims in abusive relationships and how we as a community can prevent these tragedies. Show Notes: If you or someone you know is involved in an abusive relationship, call National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (1-800-799-7233) or contact Break The Cycle. You may donate in Allison Myrick’s honor on line at: www.breakthecycle.org/donate.html or by phone at, 310-286-3383 x805

A very special guest on this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, Judge Nancy Gertner from the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, speaks out about her experience as a criminal defense attorney, her career rise to jurist and…blogging as a Judge. Join Law.com bloggers and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams as they welcome the Honorable Nancy Gertner, recipient of the 2008 Thurgood Marshall Award of the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, recognizing her contributions to advancing human rights and civil liberties.

Ringler Radio is pleased to offer this special edition with an honored guest, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel from the 15th District of New York and ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Congressman Rangel has been a champion to many people on important issues for nearly two decades in Congress. Join host, Larry Cohen from Ringler Associates’ Northeast Operation and Eric Vaughn, Director of Government Affairs for NSSTA for this broadcast at the NSSTA Annual Meeting in Puerto Rico. Hear what Congressman Rangel has to say about tort reform, medicare, tax reform, contingency fees, immigration, employment training, the economy and protecting injured parties with structured settlements. And don’t miss the Congressman’s special story about an honorable veterans group.

By Robert Milligan, Joshua Salinas, and Jeffrey Oh

In another decision that underscores the circuit split regarding the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (CFAA) language on authorized access, the Honorable Judge David Doty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has dismissed an employer’s claim that its former employees violated the Act. The case, Walsh Bishop Associates, Inc. v. O’Brien, CIV. 11-2673 DSD/AJB, 2012 WL 669069 (D. Minn. Feb. 28, 2012), concerns three former officers of the Minneapolis based architectural firm Walsh Bishop. The court held that since the defendants had authorized access to all of the electronic files they purportedly took, they could not be liable under the CFAA for their use or misuse of the files.

According to the court’s decision, Keith O’Brien, Ian Scott, and David Serrano sat on Walsh Bishop’s executive committee and had “access to the highest level of confidential and proprietary information of [Walsh Bishop].” In June 2011, the three incorporated a separate entity, also a named defendant, WBA Partners, Inc. The three allegedly used WBA Partners, Inc. name on a $7 million proposal while still working at Walsh Bishop. Additionally, in August 2011 Scott allegedly sent a Walsh Bishop customer list to his personal email and Serrano allegedly sent a drawing he had prepared for Walsh Bishop to his personal email.

All three purportedly met with competing firms during this time about switching firms and bringing their clients with them. Thereafter, defendants’ employment with Walsh Bishop terminated at an unknown date. Walsh Bishop subsequently sued defendants claiming a violation of the CFAA and a variety of other state and federal statutes, in addition to common law claims.

Walsh Bishop’s CFAA claim specifically referenced Section 1030(a)(2) of the Act, which holds a person who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains…information from a protected computer” liable for imprisonment and a fine. Although the CFAA is largely a criminal statute, an amendment to the Act passed in 1994 allows its application in civil suits.

Walsh Bishop contended that Scott and Serrano violated the CFAA when they emailed company documents to themselves “in a manner contrary to [Walsh Bishop’s] interests and use policies.” Walsh Bishop derived its argument from the Ninth Circuit case United States v. Nosal, which expanded the interpretation of “exceeds authorized access” to include violations of a company’s “computer access restrictions – including use restrictions.” (United States v. Nosal, 642 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2011), reh’g en banc granted, No. 10–10038, 2011 WL 5109831 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2011)). Nosal departed from the Ninth Circuit authority determined “authorization” based on the actions taken by the employer. (See e.g., LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009). In Brekka, the Ninth Circuit narrowly interpreted the CFAA and placed the onus on the employer to explicitly rescind the employee’s right to use or access a computer.

The defendants moved to dismiss Walsh Bishop’s CFAA claim on grounds that Walsh Bishop authorized their computer access “at the highest levels,” and, thus they could not exceed authorized access.

In his decision to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court noted that the Eight Circuit has yet to determine whether the CFAA imposes civil liability on employees who access information with permission but for an improper purpose. The court cited several Minnesota District Court cases that adopted a more narrow view of the CFAA that focused on the scope of access rather than misuse or misappropriation of information. The court found that this narrow interpretation correctly applied the language and purpose of the statute more than Nosal.

First, the court highlighted the plain language of the section 1030(a)(2), which concerns access and not the use of information. He stated that had Congress intended to target use of information, it would have included the appropriate language. (See e.g. § 1030(a)(1)).

Second, the court stated that the legislative purpose and history supports the plain meaning of statute because Congress enacted the CFAA to apply to persons who abused computer technology without access. The court emphasized that Congress never intended to provide a federal cause of action for state-law breach of contract, trade secret, or other business-tort claims.

Finally, the court addressed Walsh Bishop’s argument that the defendants’ acts were unlawful because they violated Walsh Bishop’s computer-use policies. The court first explained that he could not consider the computer-use policy because Walsh Bishop failed to attach the policy in its complaint. The court stated that even if he considered the computer-use policy, the policy only proscribed certain uses of information, not defendants’ scope of access. The court highlighted the fact that Walsh Bishop granted defendants broad access to its computer systems and expressly granted access to the areas of the systems it alleged defendants used with an improper purpose. Therefore, since the defendants had access to all of the files they purportedly took, the court ruled that they cannot be held liable under the CFAA for their use or misuse of said files.

Walsh Bishop is unfortunately at the mercy of court’s decision to use the more narrow interpretation of the CFAA, similar to the Ninth’s Circuit interpretation in Brekka, over the more employer friendly precedent established by the Seventh Circuit in International Airport Centers, LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006) and the Ninth Circuit in Nosal.

Although Walsh Bishop implemented explicit computer and data use restrictions, its policies restricted only employees’ use of information and not access to information. This alleged deficiency subjected Walsh Bishop’s claim to the court’s interpretation of the statutory language of the CFAA and corresponding circuit split.

Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Walsh Bishop’s remaining state-law claims, but dismissed the claims without prejudice so that Walsh Bishop could bring an action in Minnesota state court.

This case is important because it reminds companies to be vigilant in advancing their own computer use and access restriction policies at every opportunity. Employers should implement policies that explicitly define both the employee’s access to information and the appropriate use of information. In addition to a comprehensive and clear computer use and access policies, companies should consistently remind employees of their duty to adhere to such policies. For example, this can be done through a prompt that appears whenever the employee logs on to a protected computer system. This constant reminder can go a long way in discouraging any behavior not in the best interests of a company and provide evidentiary support should the employer need later to sue the employee for violation of the CFAA or similar state laws.
 

St. Patrick’s Day calls to mind the traditional Irish folklore of leprechauns and their hidden pots of gold. These hidden pots of gold illustrate the fundamental and straightforward rule for protecting prized trade secret information – keep it secret. A recent Ohio District Court, the Honorable Judge Michael R. Barrett presiding, denied a Plaintiff’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order because the Plaintiff had publicly posted his alleged trade secret information online. (Allure Jewelers, Inc. v. Ulu, No. 1:12cv91, 2012 WL 367719 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2012).

Plaintiff Allure Jewelers, Inc. sells gold jewelry online through eBay, Amazon, and its own website. Allure’s competitor, Defendants Mustafa Ulu and Goldia.com, similarly sells gold jewelry online through eBay, Amazon, and its own website. Since both sellers acquire their products from the same manufacturer and distributor, Quality Gold, they often sell the same products.

A dispute arose when Ulu and Goldia.com allegedly “scraped” or copied information about products from Allure’s website for their own advertisements and product listings on Goldia.com, eBay, and Amazon. Allure claimed that it spent a considerable amount of time and expense developing its trade secrets, i.e. the details and descriptions of its marketed products.

Ulu andGoldia.com also allegedly used a computer program to automatically list and sell corresponding products calculated at 98% of Allure’s advertised prices. Allure claimed that Ulu and Goldia.com were unfairly pricing products to compete with Allure.

Allure brought claims against Ulu and Goldia.com for, inter alia, misappropriation of trade secrets under the Ohio Trade Secrets Act (“OTSA”) and unfair competition. Allure also moved for a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin Ulu and Goldia.com from advertising or selling any products in which they had illegally acquired data from Allure.

The court denied Allure’s Motion because Allure demonstrated “little to no likelihood of success on the merits of its claims.” The court highlighted the fact that Allure’s Complaint failed to provide any allegation that Allure took any efforts to guard the secrecy of the information about its products: “Instead … [Allure] has published this information on the Internet.”

The court also found Allure’s unfair competition claim for Defendants’ alleged unfair pricing was preempted by the OTSA to the extent it was based upon the misappropriation of trade secrets claim. The court noted again that Allure’s Complaint failed to show any reasonable efforts of secrecy regarding pricing information, which was also publicly available on Allure’s website.

This case reiterates the essential secrecy element for maintaining information’s trade secret status. Simply put, knowingly and intentionally posting information on the Internet is contrary to preserving or maintaining secrecy. While this decision appears clear-cut and not groundbreaking, the case involves underlying gold and secrecy themes that provide a nice St. Patrick’s Day treat. Finally, if you happen to find a hidden pot of gold on St. Patrick’s Day, make sure you keep its location a secret and do not post its whereabouts on the Internet.
 

We must remember that decisions of federal magistrate judges carry no weight beyond the U.S. district judge who assigned the matter to them. Under Rule 72 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, decisions of a magistrate judge are subject to review and either approval, modification or reversal by a district judge of that court, except in civil cases where the parties consent in advance to allow the magistrate judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the district judge. The last word in the Da Silva Moore case will rest with US district Judge Andrew L. Carter who is assigned the case. Magistrate decisions by Judges like the Honorable John M Facciola, Honorable Paul Grimm, and Honorable Andrew J. Peck have become the linchpin in the evolution of e-discovery case law. However, it’s time to see more U.S. district judges like Shira A. Scheindlin taking the lead in this area. Image by Clipart.com

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently spoke at Golden Gate University School of Law’s third annual Intellectual Property Distinguished Speaker Program, where he created a buzz when he shared his insight on technology today and how it has greatly impacted the First Amendment. Attorneys and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams welcome the Honorable Alex Kozinski to the program and talk about technology, bloggers, the First Amendment, his role as a Judge and a lot more.

The murder of a young woman in Massachusetts raises new questions about the laws and the legal system in cases involving abusive relationships. 19-year old Allison Myrick was stabbed to death – her ex-boyfriend charged with murder. Authorities and family members revealed details including two restraining orders which did not prevent this tragic crime. Attorneys and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams welcome Attorney Marsha Kazarosian from the Kazarosian Law Offices and the Honorable Judge Eugene M. Hyman from the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California, to explore what could have gone so terribly wrong. They will look at how the legal system, lawyers, legislators and others can better protect victims in abusive relationships and how we as a community can prevent these tragedies. Show Notes: If you or someone you know is involved in an abusive relationship, call National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (1-800-799-7233) or contact Break The Cycle. You may donate in Allison Myrick’s honor on line at: www.breakthecycle.org/donate.html or by phone at, 310-286-3383 x805

A very special guest on this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, Judge Nancy Gertner from the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, speaks out about her experience as a criminal defense attorney, her career rise to jurist and…blogging as a Judge. Join Law.com bloggers and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams as they welcome the Honorable Nancy Gertner, recipient of the 2008 Thurgood Marshall Award of the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, recognizing her contributions to advancing human rights and civil liberties.

In the world of law, Judges and attorneys have been working side by side throughout history. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, we will turn to our expert judges to discover what they look for in an attorney and what they expect. Law.com bloggers and co-hosts, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi welcome Judge William W. Bedsworth, an Associate Justice for the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Honorable William Dressel, President of the National Judicial College in Nevada and Judge Steve Leben, President of the American Judges Association, to discuss their view from behind the bench. the bench.

“Gee, I really wish they wouldn’t do that.”

To his credit, and to the credit of John McCain before him, Romney wanted nothing to do with such an approach, which was to have been funded by TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts. Part of his rejection is pure pragmatism: Romney, like McCain, understands that such an approach would be politically …

Tracy Thorne-Begland

Last night, however, Thorne-Begland’s nomination was rejected, falling 18 votes short of …

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 3 seconds to load.