Recently in Privacy Category

Blog #14 ("Private" Arbitrations Are Not Necessarily "Confidential" Arbitrations, part 2 of 2; Kevin Kennedy)

November 30, 2011


Thanks to my colleague Eric Jorgensen for this week's legal portion.

Returning to the question of whether and to what extent parties to an arbitration can protect materials generated and facts uncovered in the arbitration from subsequent disclosure to third parties, we see that surprisingly little case law exists on this issue (and none of it comes from California). The leading federal case seems to be United States v. Panhandle Eastern Corp., 118 F.R.D. 346 (D. Del. 1988), in which the court held that arbitration communications are discoverable and admissible and refused to grant an order protecting them under Rule 26(c). In Panhandle, a pipeline company sought to prevent the disclosure of documents relating to an arbitration held in Geneva, on the (somewhat vague) ground that such disclosure would damage its international business relationships. Specifically rejecting the argument that internal arbitration rules require confidentiality or that a "general understanding" of confidentiality by the parties (as opposed to an explicit confidentiality provision) could justify a protective order, and concluding that the company failed to meet is burden to establish "good cause" for a protective order under Rule 26(c), the court ordered that the material be produced. In Lawrence E. Jaffee Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc., 2004 WL 1821968 (D. Colo. Aug. 13, 2004) (unpublished decision), notwithstanding that the arbitration agreement did contain an explicit confidentiality provision, the court still compelled production of arbitration materials, holding that, even with a confidentiality agreement, the moving party would still have to establish "good cause" for a protective order under Rule 26(c), which the moving party had not done.

Continue Reading Legal Post and Opening Day Memory

Blog #13 ("Private" Arbitrations Are Not Necessarily "Confidential" Arbitrations - part 1 of 2; Monte Irvin)

November 16, 2011


Thanks to my colleague Eric Jorgensen for this week's legal portion.

Arbitration is frequently advertised to be a "private" process, and many lawyers make the mistake of assuming that "private" means "confidential" - in other words, that materials generated in the course of the arbitration can be protected from subsequent disclosure through discovery and elsewhere. Not so. In this context, "private" only refers to the ability of third parties to access and observe the proceedings, and to disclose those observations to others, without the consent of the parties, which is extremely limited. (Unlike trials, arbitrations are rarely conducted in public.) Whether the parties have discretion, or can be compelled, to subsequently disclose the details of the proceedings, including, again, evidence and pleadings submitted, transcripts of testimony and other hearings, etc., is a different question entirely.

Continue Reading Legal Post and Opening Day Memory

Blog #12 (In Discovery, Be Prepared to Disclose Their Contact Information; Bill "Spaceman" Lee)

November 2, 2011

I want to thank my colleague, Zachary Mayer, for this week's legal portion.

Identifying potential witnesses is something almost every litigant is asked to do in civil cases. Often this is accomplished through Judicial Council Form Interrogatory No. 12.1, a standard discovery request which, among other things, asks the responding party to identify individuals who witnessed the incident in question or who have knowledge of the incident. The question also asks for the addresses and telephone numbers of such persons. This inquiry has obvious privacy implications. Courts recognize that individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their addresses and telephone numbers. But does that interest trump a litigant's right to obtain a person's contact information for investigative purposes when the other side has disclosed the person as a potential witness? Not according to the court's decision in Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242.

Continue Reading Legal Post and Opening Day Memory

Blog #8 (Workplace Privacy and Monitoring Policies: How Far Should Employers Go?; Ron Darling)

September 21, 2011


I want to thank my colleague, Kim Talley, for this week's legal portion.

Everyone would frown upon a co-worker using the company's email system to send racist emails to another co-worker and would equally grimace at the company's executive utilizing her company-issued blackberry to send unwelcomed, sexually explicit text messages to her assistant. Indeed, there are probably well-drafted policies in place which prohibit the use of company-issued equipment in this manner, imposing swift disciplinary action for such offenses. Should these same company policies prohibit a co-worker from going on the company's Internet system to pay his student loan bill or order a birthday present for his wife or allow the company to monitor all personal text messages on a company issued blackberry including the one that was sent by a work professional to her husband while she was away on a business trip? As employees begin to spend more time at work or bring their work into their homes with the use of company-issued equipment such as laptops, computer tablets and smart phones, companies must decide whether they are going to have more strict or permissive workplace policies in effect that address these issues.

Continue Reading Legal Post and Opening Day Memory

Blog #5 - (When Dealing With Outside Vendors, Be Sure To Consider The Privacy Rights Of Third Parties; Eddie Watt)

August 31, 2011

Thanks to my colleague Marc Berkemeier for this week's legal portion.

As technology advances and we find new ways to deal with the mounds of discovery demands and electronic information that come across our desks, more and more firms are using outside vendors for technical assistance. For example, they may hire a discovery vendor to sift through a client's internal hard drives to search for lost files or earlier versions of important documents. A client may also require database assistance to sort relevant data into a format that is easily useable by counsel and the court. Although such projects can result in significant time and money savings for your client throughout the litigation process, it is important to remember that certain privacy rights cannot be ignored.

Continue Reading Legal Post and Opening Day Memory