Italian DPA finds that misleading snippets must be deleted but in case under review Google had already done it

On December 18, 2014, the Italian Data Protection Authority (DPA) issued an order with which it confirmed that the right to be forgotten must be balanced with the public interest to read recent important facts.  However, in addition to confirming the need to balance the right to be forgotten with the freedom of expression, the order […]

Tags: ,

ECJ holds a private CCTV camera which incidentally monitors a public space is not data processing “in the course of a purely personal or household activity” (Article 3(2) EU 95/46)

On December 11, 2014, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered the recording by CCTV (Closed-circuit television) cameras on private premises as “household exception” to data protection laws, even though they incidentally monitored a public space. In this case, a Czech citizen installed a camera system for security purposes in his family home. The camera registered […]

Tags: ,

Federal court reproaches parties for prolix and behemoth complaints which do not comply with Fed Rule Civ. P. 8(a)(2)

In a breach of action and infringement case, the Southern District of New York ordered the parties to submit “short and plain” statements as required by Fed Rule Civ. P. 8(a)(2). According to the judge, “a troubling trend toward prolixity is infecting court dockets”. “A growing number of attorneys, from solo practitioners to big law” […]

Tags:

Foreign companies which did not expect being sued in the US have no duty to preserve evidence until they are served

In this patent infringement case, the Southern District of Ohio ruled that “the power of a U.S. Court to require compliance with U.S. discovery obligations does not arise until and unless the Court has jurisdiction”. Among other discovery issues, the Court addressed the question of the moment in which the duty to preserve evidences arises […]

Tags:

An update on Case C-362/14 (the ECJ to decide whether European judges are still “absolutely bound” by Safe Harbor)

On March 24, 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) heard arguments on case C-362/14. The ECJ is called to decide on whether national judges are “absolutely bound” by a company’s declaration to participate in the Safe Harbor, or whether they could still conduct their own investigations to determine if personal data are protected according […]

Tags: , ,

Federal Court holds “predictive coding” and other TAR should not be held to higher standards just because technology is used

Three years after Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, Judge Peck issued a new opinion dealing with predictive coding. In this fraud case, Judge Peck stressed that it is “inappropriate to hold TAR to a higher standard than keywords or manual review. Doing so discourages parties from using TAR for fear of spending more in […]

Tags:

Federal Court awards defendant comprehensive e-discovery costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) because of overly broad discovery request

The District Court of Colorado determined cost shifting was appropriate because of the requesting party litigation choices and aggressive course of discovery resulted in heightened defense costs. In this case, the Clerk of the Court awarded $57,873.61 of taxable costs against the Plaintiff. Defendant, who prevailed on summary judgment, incurred into those costs as a […]

Tags:

Italian DPA’s draft of code of conduct for companies processing personal data for business information purpose opened for comments

On February 19, 2015 (decision no. 96) the Italian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) opened for comments a draft of a code of conduct for companies processing personal data for business information purpose. Based on the definition given in the draft, the covered companies are those that provide information and evaluation services that may involve the […]

Tags: ,

1 56 57 58 59 60 80