Intellectual Property Law Blog

In Al Minor & Associates, Inc. v. Martin, 117 Ohio St.3d 58, 2008-Ohio-292, the Ohio Supreme Court recently held that memorizing information, including specifically client lists, constitutes trade secret misappropriation. The court found that neither the Uniform Trade Secret Act nor the Ohio legislature "intended to distinguish between information that has been reduced to some tangible form and some information that has been memorized."

Just about every company has the provision in its employee handbook that its employees have no expectation of privacy when using computers provided by the employer.  However, to what extent these provisions are enforceable differs between jurisdictions.

On December 1, 2006, several amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") will become effective. The changes that deal directly with electronically stored information ("ESI") will likely affect the means, method, and timing of discovery. Selected amendments to the FRCP are discussed below:

Click here to view a PDF copy of the document.

Today, more than ever, companies are confronted with a broad array of electronic document issues, including data retention policies and e-discovery during litigation. Failing to comply with rules regarding such electronic data can cost millions of dollars.

For instance, in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. 06 0882 (D.C., May 12, 2006), the SEC alleged that defendant failed to produce tens of thousands of emails sought by the SEC in two investigations. The court entered an 8-page consent judgment against defendant. Three of the major points in the judgment are:

1. Defendant was ordered to pay $15,000,000
2. Defendant was permanently enjoined from violating Section 17(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (requiring a prompt document production, including electronic documents); and
3. For one year, Defendant, at its own cost, was ordered to hire an independent consultant (acceptable to the SEC) to review and evaluate defendant's policies, procedures, and training in order to comply with the judgment. The independent consultant is to make recommendations which must, absent undue burden or impracticality, be adopted by Defendant.