quinn emanuel
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp | business litigation report
INSIDE
Delaware Court Finds
Password Protection for
Electronic Documents
Insufcient to Preserve Trade
Secrets
Page 4
Practice Area Updates:
Insurance Litigation Update
Page 6
EU Litigation Update
Page 7
ITC Litigation Update
Page 8
Quinn Emanuel Immigrant
Defense Project
and Other Victories
Page 10
Attorney Advertising
August 2014
los angeles | new york | san francisco | silicon valley | chicago | washington, d.c. | houston | tokyo | london | mannheim | hamburg | munich | paris | moscow | hong kong | sydney | brussels
(continued on page 2)
Ninth Circuit Shifts “Signicant Expense” of Compliance with Third Party
Subpoenas to Party Seeking Discovery
e escalating cost of discovery compliance is
especially frustrating for non-parties who are
subpoenaed for evidence allegedly relevant to litigation
in which they have no stake. Responding to a broad
subpoena may require retaining vendors to collect and
process potentially responsive electronically-stored
information (“ESI”), interviewing employees to
determine relevant custodians, and hiring outside
counsel to review documents for responsiveness and
privilege. e costs in time, eort, and dollars can be
considerable. See, e.g., Linder v. Calero-Portocarrero,
251 F.3d 178, 182 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (estimated
costs of compliance with third party subpoenas to
federal agencies in wrongful death action totaled
$199,537.08).
Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides for cost-shifting to protect non-parties from
these costs. Yet, although subpoenas are a staple of
federal litigation, there is a relative dearth of case
law regarding cost-shifting for third party discovery.
Recently, however, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit claried that cost-shifting is
mandatory if a non-party has incurred “signicant
expense” in responding to a subpoena. Legal Voice
v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 178, 182 (9th Cir. 2013)
is holding should encourage more non-parties to
pursue cost-shifting aggressively and, at the same time,
encourage federal litigants to be more conservative
in their discovery requests to non-parties and more
amenable to negotiated limitations on non-parties’
discovery responses.
Quinn Emanuel Wins 2014
Chambers USA
Product Liability
Practice Group of the Year
e rm was honored at the 2014 Chambers and Partners Practice Group of the Year
Awards in New York City as the Product Liability Practice Group of the Year. e rm’s
stellar group of product liability lawyers includes Sheila Birnbaum, Mark Cheo, and
Faith Gay in the New York oce,Mike Lyle and Eric Lyttle in the Washington, D.C.
oce, and many other well known practitioners in other oces around the globe.
Quinn Emanuel Receives Top Dispute Resolution Rankings in
The Legal 500 EMEA 2014
Quinn Emanuel Moscow has been recognized by e Legal 500 Europe, Middle East &
Africa 2014 as a top-tier rm for dispute resolution in Russia. e rm received the
following rankings:
•
Dispute Resolution: Litigation (Tier 1)– the only international law rm included
in Tier 1
•
Dispute Resolution: Arbitration and Mediation (Tier 2)
e rm’s Moscow oce was recognized for its representation of Russian
businesspeople and companies in several multi-billion dollar arbitrations across various
jurisdictions arising out of a major construction project in the CIS. e Moscow team
also won a series of victories in the Russian courts in cases concerning the control
of Hungarian gas trader EMFESZ. Moscow Managing Partner Ivan Marisin was
recognized as a Leading Individual in both Dispute Resolution: Litigation and Dispute
Resolution: Arbitration and Mediation.
Q
Fourteen Partners Ranked by
Managing Intellectual Property
Magazine
see page 9
Q
