…rm or illness? As a first line of defense, pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers seek protection under federal regulation but there are ways for such manufacturers to game that system (by promoting, for example, “off label” uses or, theoretically, by duping federal regulators by other means (i.e., concealing or distorting data as to efficacy or side effects)). So the FDA may afford medical companies some protection, but that protec… Continue reading →

…arguably a recipe for “abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices…[that] contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy…” (to quote the FDCPA statute (15 U.S.C. 1692)). In short, the realities of the industry arguably create a strong justification for government regulation.  On the other hand, debt collectors are often put… Continue reading →

…al cause of action for state-law breach of contract, fiduciary duty, trade secret or other business-tort claims.”  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the CFAA claim (as well as federal claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Lanham Act) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, requiring Walsh Bishop to re-file them in state court. … Continue reading →

Update (June 29, 2011):  Xcedex sought (and was granted) the relatively uncommon permission to file a reply brief in support of its motion to compel from U.S. Mag. Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes (D. Minn.) because, Xcedex counsel argued, defendant VMWare, in its response to the motion to compel, switched arguments from the laptop owner’s privacy interest to an objection about a supposed cost exceeding $700,000-$1.5 million cost for the forensic in… Continue reading →

…cebook.  Our society is consumed by (or at least concerned about) this new dimension in social interaction. Looking at it from another angle, following on yesterday’s ML post regarding the evolution (and extinction?) of privacy, the internet blurs public and private as never before.  At a time when our society is perhaps more sensitized than ever as to the harms and danger of bullying and hate speech, the combination is a First Amendment pi… Continue reading →

Civil litigators enjoy one of the most complex and interesting relationships between people — the attorney-client relationship — in so many ways such a close relationship in some cases and in so many ways a risky relationship.  See Exhibit A (linked here); Exh. B (linked here); Exh. C (linked here). One recipe for disaster:  the zealous sleuth client, who, increasingly frequently, shows up at the lawyer’s office with “a l… Continue reading →

…protection authorities.  There was subsequent investigation and, ultimately, no finding of any abuse was made.  The girl’s family sued the friend’s mother, alleging ?common-law claims of defamation and invasion of privacy and a statutory claim of making a false report of maltreatment of a child.  The district court granted summary judgment to the friend’s mother on the ground that she was immune from liability pursuant to Minnes… Continue reading →

…with certain allegations redacted.  The redactions do not relate to private patient data but rather relate to alleged conduct of parties, pointing to a subtle tension in the case law on the subject of private litigants’ privacy rights (versus the public’s right to know) in the context of civil litigation in U.S. courts (compare this recent ruling by U.S. Mag. Judge Franklin L. Noel (D. Minn.)). … Continue reading →

… claims), “[g]iven the potential that [the plaintiff's] prosthetic leg could be used as a dangerous weapon, the decision to confiscate his prosthetic leg was objectively reasonable, despite the intrusion on his personal privacy.” Judge Colloton concurred and dissented in part (see more after the break). Judge Colloton had this to say on the case (in part): The defendant police officers  . . . had probablecause to arrest the plaintiff… Continue reading →

…red metaphor) is understandable. On the other hand, the U.S. Government has its own concept of “the public interest,” which might not coincide with particular litigants’ preferences or interests.  It has the privacy interests of crime victims, the secrecy of on-going criminal investigations, along with many other concerns to keep in mind.  Litigants at the epicenter of the Thomas J. Petters huge Ponzi fraud litigation sought eme… Continue reading →