By Eric Siebert

Any party who thinks about cutting corners in complying with e-discovery should think again. On December 9, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge David Herndon from the Southern District of Illinois imposed close to $1 million in punitive damages on defendants Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH (“BII”) and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“BIPI”) for failing to adequately comply with the court’s discovery orders in In re Pradaxa Products Liability Litigation.

The defendants in this case were punished, largely due to the limited scope of their litigation holds and the timeliness of their productions. Ultimately, the court found no problem with the scope or language of the litigation holds, but rather with their implementation. Notably, the court mentioned that the defendants never sought leave of the court to delay implementation of their litigation holds, and the court therefore relied on the presumption that all material relevant to litigation was being preserved as requested.

Continue reading →

By Peter Montine

Last month the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed an order requiring the website Yelp to disclose the identities of seven anonymous users who left critical reviews about a carpet cleaning company. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc., is a carpet cleaning business in Alexandria, VA. Like thousands of other business, Hadeed Carpet Cleaning has a profile on Yelp, a social networking platform that allows users to find, rate, and review local businesses. Users are able to post their reviews anonymously, but Yelp only allows users to review businesses that they have actually patronized.

Hadeed noticed several negative reviews posted anonymously on its Yelp page and tried to identify which of its customers had left these reviews. Unable to match seven of these anonymous negative reviews with actual customers, Hadeed began to suspect that these were fake reviews left by competitors or other dishonest users. Hadeed asked Yelp to disclose the identities of these seven anonymous users, but Yelp refused to do so. Hadeed then sought a subpoena duces tecum (an order to produce documents or evidence) for the identities of the seven users, and Yelp again objected. The state circuit court ordered Yelp to comply with the subpoena, but Yelp once again refused. Ultimately, the court held Yelp in civil contempt. Yelp appealed the decision of the circuit court, but the Court of Appeals affirmed it.

Continue reading →

By Amy Wang

Just two weeks ago, on January 23, 2014, “the most hated man on the Internet” was arrested by the FBI. Hunter Moore, the proprietor of IsAnyoneUp.com and best known as the “Revenge Porn King,” and his accomplice, Charles “Gary” Evens, were indicted by a federal grand jury on 15 counts, including conspiracy, unauthorized access to a protected computer to obtain information, and aggravated identity theft. Oddly, none of the charges brought against Moore condemned him for publicizing private, sexually explicit photographs of women without their permission.

Revenge porn consists of graphic photos or videos, typically of women, posted online without the consent of those depicted. These pictures are often shared with a significant other but subsequently disseminated across the Internet by that same partner once the relationship dissolves and feelings turn bitter and spiteful. Although there are plenty of self-submissions by wannabe “models,” Moore crossed legal boundaries by hiring Evens to hack private email accounts and steal more nude pictures. The website went as far as identifying the women it victimized by providing their social media contact information, exposing their lives to the harassment of Internet creeps.

And yet, revenge porn is not generally illegal.

Continue reading →

By Juliya Ziskina – Guest Blogger

When you have intellectual property––especially IP worth millions of dollars––it makes sense to protect it. But can such protections go too far? Many video game industry figures are asking this question, as game developers whose games include the word “candy” are receiving cease-and-desist letters from British game developer King, the makers of the game Candy Crush Saga, one of the most popular apps across Facebook and on mobile devices.

King has registered a national trademark in the European Union for the word “candy” as it pertains to video games and, strangely, clothing. King is still awaiting word from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on a similar trademark application. This could potentially spell trouble for developers who have or plan to release a game that includes the word “candy.”

Continue reading →

By Stephen Anson

Technology and the internet have transformed the way the world communicates. Social media platforms and other web services are continuously expanding the avenues for individual expression, forcing the law of defamation to evolve. Just as print journalists were brought to court for libel in the past, so too are Twitter users now being sued for libel. This has opened a path for users to claim Constitutional protections. While there have been a number of Twitter-related libel cases filed over the past few years, they have all been settled out of court and so the state of the law was a little unclear.

A recent lawsuit involving Courtney Love was the first Twitter-related libel case to go to trial, and it serves as a warning to anyone thinking of using Twitter as a microphone to project personal attacks. In 2008, Love hired Rhonda Holmes to pursue a fraud case against those handling the estate of Kurt Cobain, the late Nirvana lead singer and Love’s husband. The relationship between Love and Holmes deteriorated after six months, and Holmes alleged that relationship was contingent on Love refraining from substance abuse, a stipulation that eventually angered the singer. In 2010, Love posted a tweet stating that Holmes had been “bought off.” Shortly thereafter, Holmes and her law firm sued Love for libel.

Continue reading →