Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Cyber Breaches
October 18, 2021 —
Shaia Araghi - Newmeyer DillionInvestigations and forensic reports relating to a cybersecurity breach may not always be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Companies seeking such reports after a data breach must take caution to protect them from a possible waiver of privilege in the event of subsequent litigation relating to a data breach. The following recent cases highlight the potential waiver of privilege in light of the preparation of a forensic report.
- In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 3470261 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020)
- After a data breach occurred, Capital One retained a law firm that later entered into an agreement with Mandiant for various cyber-related services (including incident remediation), which required that Mandiant provide deliverables to the firm, rather than to Capitol One. In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 2731238, at *1 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020). Plaintiffs sought release of the report created by Mandiant (regarding the factors leading to the breach), arguing that it was prepared for business and regulatory purposes and therefore was not privileged, while Capital One argued that the report was privileged because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Ibid. The Court determined that Capital One did not carry its burden of establishing that the report was protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and ordered that Capital One produce the report. Id. at *7. In its reasoning, the Court stated that the fact that there is litigation does not, by itself, provide prepared materials with work-product protection. Ibid. The work-product protection applies when a party faces a claim following an event that may result in litigation, and the work product would not have been prepared in a substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation. Ibid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer DillionMs. Araghi may be contacted at
shaia.araghi@ndlf.com
Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal
June 15, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThose of you in the construction industry know that the two primary statutes of limitation are the 4-year year statute of limitations for patent defects and 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects. Both statutes begin to run on “substantial completion.”
In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court of San Diego, Case No. D076264 (January 22, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether the term “substantial completion,” as used in Civil Code section 941, which applies to residential construction, can be defined by the parties’ contract and applied to third-parties.
The Hensel Phelps Case
Hensel Phelps Construction Co. entered into a prime construction contract with the owner and developer of a mixed-use project in San Diego. Hensel Phelps was the general contractor on the project. The project included a residential condominium tower which would eventually be managed and maintained by Smart Corner Owners Association. Smart Corners was not a party to the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
The Project “Completion” Paradox in California
April 06, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWe’ve written before about why the date of “completion” on a California construction project is important, and why, if I may be blunt, determining that date can be as frustrating as a one-legged man in a game of kickass.
You see, in California the deadline to record a mechanics lien, serve a stop payment notice, or make a payment bond claim – important construction payment remedies the California State Legislature saw fit to help you get paid – often depends on when a project is “completed.” So, for example, the deadline for direct contractors to record a mechanics lien is 90 days from completion of the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Billion-Dollar Power Lines Finally Inching Ahead to Help US Grids
April 03, 2023 —
Brian Eckhouse, Naureen S Malik & Dave Merrill - BloombergThe biggest impediment to the US achieving a cleaner power grid isn't climate deniers or fossil-fuel lobbies; it’s a lack of transmission lines. The country badly needs more conduits to cart wind and solar energy and hydropower to cities.
For more than a decade, multibillion-dollar power-line projects have struggled to advance, slowed or halted by bureaucracy, NIMBYism or general industry stasis. Now suddenly, several are progressing — and with them the prospect of newly unleashed clean energy as well as more resilient grids in the face of ever-dangerous storms and extreme heatwaves.
There’s SunZia in the Southwest, TransWest Express in the Mountain West, Grain Belt Express to the Midwest, and Champlain Hudson Power Express into New York City — projects that together will cost at least $13 billion. Some are now ordering expensive equipment, a signal of their advancement. SunZia and TransWest expect to begin construction this year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Eckhouse, Bloomberg,
Naureen S Malik, Bloomberg and
Dave Merrill, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”
October 15, 2024 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupMany contractors and owners believe that if they hire an independent contractor to perform work and that independent contractor causes injury to others during the performance of that work, then it is the independent contractor alone who will be liable for those injuries. In most circumstances, this is correct. The owner or the contractor will not be held liable for injuries caused by his or her independent contractor. However, this is not always the case.
Under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine” and California cases interpreting the doctrine, a contractor or owner who hires an independent contractor to do work which is considered to be “inherently dangerous work” can be still be held directly liable for damages when that independent contractor causes injury to others by negligently performing the work.
Such liability can generally be imposed on the one hiring the independent contractor under either of two branches of the peculiar risk doctrine. First, where a person hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that special precautions must be taken to avert the peculiar risk of injury related to that work, then the one hiring the independent contractor can be held liable for injuries to others caused by the independent contractor’s negligence. (Restatement Second of Torts Section 413). For example, in Mackey v. Campbell Construction Co. 101 Cal. App. 3d 774, 162 Cal. Rptr. 64 (1980), Western Electric Company, the owner of the project, was found liable for the personal injuries of a subcontractor’s employee because Western’s representatives were on the job at all times, had doubts about the safety of scaffolding being used on the project, yet failed to require use of precautions that could have been taken to avoid injury.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Beware: Hyper-Technical Labor Code Violations May Expose Employers to Significant Claims for Penalties under the Labor Code California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)
May 10, 2017 —
Angela Reston-Nunez – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMost employers know that companywide policies or practices that do not strictly comply with applicable state or federal employment laws can expose employers to class action lawsuits by large numbers of employees seeking recovery of massive sums in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Unfortunately, traditional class action lawsuits are not the only representative actions employers should be concerned with. Recent litigation trends have shown that California’s lesser known Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) can be equally, if not more harmful to employers than class actions due to steep penalties for minor violations.
WHAT IS PAGA?
Under PAGA, “aggrieved employees” can sue employers for alleged Labor Code violations. Like class actions, a PAGA plaintiff sues on a representative basis on behalf of themselves and other workers. However, unlike class action plaintiffs, PAGA plaintiffs do not seek damages; rather, they seek civil and statutory penalties formerly recoverable solely by state agencies in enforcement actions.
The distinction between recovery of damages in class actions and recovery of penalties in PAGA actions reflects the often-insidious nature of PAGA claims. While workers have long alleged “derivative” PAGA claims for penalties in connection with more substantive underlying Labor Code violations (meal or rest break violations, for example), we have seen a recent spike in PAGA suits alleging hyper-technical Labor Code violations with no underlying substantive violation, and where the “aggrieved employees” have suffered no actual harm.
WHAT'S AT STAKE?
Equally troubling for employers is the method by which significant penalties are aggregated. With a few significant exceptions, penalties generally range from $50 to $250 per violation. At first blush, this may not seem like much, however total penalties rise rapidly when considering that calculations are made on a per-employee and a per-pay period basis.
AN EXAMPLE ON HOW PAGA WORKS
Consider the following example based on one recent case:
Issue: An employee brought a PAGA-only lawsuit on behalf of himself and 400 other “aggrieved employees” against his employer for alleged Labor Code violations.
Claim: The employee claimed the employer’s 30-year practice of paying employees 9 days after the close of the applicable payroll period violated Labor Code Section 204(d), which requires payment to be made within 7 days of the close of the payroll period. The employee claimed that, under PAGA, the employer was liable for a minimum penalty of $100 per employee, per pay period, going back at least one year (the statutory limitations period for PAGA claims).
Exposure: With 400 employees, 24 pay periods per year, and $100 per violation, the plaintiff sought a minimum of $960,000 in penalties (not including substantial attorneys’ fees, costs and interest also available under PAGA), despite offering no evidence of harm suffered by the employees or prior notice of the issue.
OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to a draconian penalties scheme, there are a myriad of additional aggravating factors for employers involved in PAGA litigation, such as:
- PAGA plaintiffs are not required to meet the rigorous class certification standards required of class action plaintiffs, meaning plaintiffs’ attorneys may be more likely to bring meritless “strike suits” aimed at obtaining quick settlements based on significant alleged penalties exposure.
- 75% of PAGA penalties recovered by way of settlement or judgment are directed to the state of California, while the "aggrieved employees” only keep 25%, reinforcing the notion that PAGA claims are frequently attorneys’-fee-driven, rather than for protecting employees.
STEPS FOR EMPLOYERS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
Fortunately, there are a number of measures employers can take prior to and during wage and hour litigation which can dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, exposure to substantial penalties and damages. This includes:
- Regular reviews. Prior to litigation, we recommend regular detailed reviews of company policies and practices in order to identify areas of possible concern and ensure compliance with California’s ever-changing labor laws.
- Take action. On receipt of a new PAGA claim, taking immediate action to remedy an alleged violation within the Labor Code’s 33-day “safe harbor” time-period may help limit an employer’s exposure, and could bar a plaintiff from filing suit at all.
- Be aggressive. Once a PAGA or class action claim is in litigation, a proactive, aggressive approach to claim evaluation, investigation and litigation is critical.
For these reasons and more, it’s in an employers’ best interest to monitor these issues closely and seek input when appropriate.
Angela Reston-Nunez is a labor and employment attorney in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. For questions regarding PAGA, class action or individual wage and hour issues, or other employment law matters, please feel free to contact Angela Reston-Nunez at (925) 988-3249 or angela.reston-nunez@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety
January 14, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFPhil Henderson, owner of Stevensville Hardware which is adjacent to the theater, has sued the Stevensville Playhouse, alleging that one of the theater building’s walls leans over into his property, according to the Bitterroot Star. Henderson stated that the leaning wall is interfering with construction plan, and he also alleges that the building is not safe and should be condemned.
A building inspector hired by Henderson declared that “…it seems necessary to notify the Stevensville Playhouse that their structure is to be immediately considered unsafe for entry, occupancy, etc.” However, another engineering firm presented a different view on the situation: “The playhouse has withstood many snow storms and earthquakes during its life and will likely continue to function well into the future. We do not mean to downplay the need to perform the recommended repairs, but we do not feel that the building needs to be condemned at this point.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim
May 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn an unpublished decision, the California Fourth Appellate District Court has reversed the judgment of Judge Linda B. Quinn of the Superior Court of San Diego. In the case Inland California, Inc. v. G.A. Abell, Inland, a general contractor had subcontracted with Apache Construction and Precision Electric Company (G.A. Abell).
Apache alleged that extra demolition and drywall work was needed due to Precision’s electrical work. Inland tendered a defense of Apache’s claims. However, Precision did not provide any defense. Inland withheld payment from Precision.
At trial, Inland “conceded Precision earned the $98,000 in progress payments Inland withheld.†They were obligated to additionally pay Precision’s costs and attorney fees.
The Fourth Appellate District court has overturned this and remanded the case back to the lower court. The judges determined that Precision was obligated to defend itself against the claims raised by Apache and therefore vacated the judgment against Inland.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
