Menu

The expanding scope of the Coronavirus has created uncertainty and anxiety on a global scale, encompassing both public health and economic impacts. As business leaders around the world grapple with a wide range of questions, Paul Hastings is here to help.

 

RECENT ARTICLES

Recent Articles

Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
Publication Type(s):
Client Alerts
Exlcude on home page:
No

Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

2   Id.

3  Id.

4  Id.

5   Id.

6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

7  Id.

8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

IsRss:
  • employment
  • client alerts

5 comments

Leave a comment
  1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
  2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
  3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
  4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
  5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

    Leave a comment

    Client Alert

    Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

    Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
    Publication Type(s):
    Client Alerts
    Exlcude on home page:
    No

    Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

    While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

    At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

    Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

    Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



    1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

    2   Id.

    3  Id.

    4  Id.

    5   Id.

    6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

    7  Id.

    8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

    9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

    IsRss:
    • employment
    • client alerts

    5 comments

    Leave a comment
    1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
    2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
    3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
    4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
    5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

      Leave a comment

      LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

      Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

      Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
      Publication Type(s):
      Client Alerts
      Exlcude on home page:
      No

      Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

      While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

      At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

      Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

      Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



      1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

      2   Id.

      3  Id.

      4  Id.

      5   Id.

      6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

      7  Id.

      8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

      9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

      IsRss:
      • employment
      • client alerts

      5 comments

      Leave a comment
      1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
      2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
      3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
      4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
      5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

        Leave a comment

        FINANCIAL REGULATION & THE CARES ACT

        Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

        Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
        Publication Type(s):
        Client Alerts
        Exlcude on home page:
        No

        Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

        While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

        At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

        Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

        Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



        1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

        2   Id.

        3  Id.

        4  Id.

        5   Id.

        6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

        7  Id.

        8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

        9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

        IsRss:
        • employment
        • client alerts

        5 comments

        Leave a comment
        1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
        2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
        3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
        4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
        5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

          Leave a comment

          ASSET MANAGEMENT

          Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

          Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
          Publication Type(s):
          Client Alerts
          Exlcude on home page:
          No

          Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

          While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

          At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

          Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

          Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



          1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

          2   Id.

          3  Id.

          4  Id.

          5   Id.

          6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

          7  Id.

          8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

          9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

          IsRss:
          • employment
          • client alerts

          5 comments

          Leave a comment
          1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
          2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
          3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
          4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
          5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

            Leave a comment

            TAX LAW

            Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

            Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
            Publication Type(s):
            Client Alerts
            Exlcude on home page:
            No

            Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

            While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

            At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

            Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

            Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



            1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

            2   Id.

            3  Id.

            4  Id.

            5   Id.

            6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

            7  Id.

            8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

            9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

            IsRss:
            • employment
            • client alerts

            5 comments

            Leave a comment
            1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
            2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
            3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
            4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
            5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

              Leave a comment

              REAL ESTATE & HOSPITALITY

              Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

              Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
              Publication Type(s):
              Client Alerts
              Exlcude on home page:
              No

              Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

              While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

              At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

              Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

              Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



              1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

              2   Id.

              3  Id.

              4  Id.

              5   Id.

              6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

              7  Id.

              8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

              9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

              IsRss:
              • employment
              • client alerts

              5 comments

              Leave a comment
              1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
              2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
              3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
              4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
              5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

                Leave a comment

                DISPUTES

                Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

                Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
                Publication Type(s):
                Client Alerts
                Exlcude on home page:
                No

                Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

                While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

                At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

                Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

                Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



                1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

                2   Id.

                3  Id.

                4  Id.

                5   Id.

                6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

                7  Id.

                8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

                9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

                IsRss:
                • employment
                • client alerts

                5 comments

                Leave a comment
                1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
                2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
                3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

                  Leave a comment

                  PRIVACY & CYBERSECURITY

                  Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

                  Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
                  Publication Type(s):
                  Client Alerts
                  Exlcude on home page:
                  No

                  Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

                  While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

                  At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

                  Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

                  Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



                  1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

                  2   Id.

                  3  Id.

                  4  Id.

                  5   Id.

                  6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

                  7  Id.

                  8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

                  9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

                  IsRss:
                  • employment
                  • client alerts

                  5 comments

                  Leave a comment
                  1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
                  2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
                  3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                  4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                  5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

                    Leave a comment

                    SECURITIES & CAPITAL MARKETS

                    Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

                    Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
                    Publication Type(s):
                    Client Alerts
                    Exlcude on home page:
                    No

                    Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

                    While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

                    At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

                    Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

                    Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



                    1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

                    2   Id.

                    3  Id.

                    4  Id.

                    5   Id.

                    6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

                    7  Id.

                    8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

                    9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

                    IsRss:
                    • employment
                    • client alerts

                    5 comments

                    Leave a comment
                    1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
                    2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
                    3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                    4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                    5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

                      Leave a comment

                      EUROPE

                      Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

                      Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
                      Publication Type(s):
                      Client Alerts
                      Exlcude on home page:
                      No

                      Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

                      While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

                      At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

                      Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

                      Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



                      1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

                      2   Id.

                      3  Id.

                      4  Id.

                      5   Id.

                      6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

                      7  Id.

                      8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

                      9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

                      IsRss:
                      • employment
                      • client alerts

                      5 comments

                      Leave a comment
                      1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
                      2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
                      3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                      4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                      5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

                        Leave a comment

                        LATIN AMERICA

                        Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

                        Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
                        Publication Type(s):
                        Client Alerts
                        Exlcude on home page:
                        No

                        Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

                        While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

                        At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

                        Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

                        Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



                        1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

                        2   Id.

                        3  Id.

                        4  Id.

                        5   Id.

                        6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

                        7  Id.

                        8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

                        9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

                        IsRss:
                        • employment
                        • client alerts

                        5 comments

                        Leave a comment
                        1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
                        2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
                        3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                        4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                        5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

                          Leave a comment

                           

                          KEY INSIGHTS

                          Is IP Theft an Emergency During a Global Pandemic? Maybe Not, According to One Court

                          Apr 16, 2020, 09:51 AM
                          Publication Type(s):
                          Client Alerts
                          Exlcude on home page:
                          No

                          Emergency! Someone stole your idea—it’s time to rush into court to seek a temporary restraining order. In trade secret and data theft cases, plaintiffs frequently rely on emergency relief to protect their valuable intellectual property. But in the midst of a global pandemic, when many courts are hearing civil motion practice only on an emergency basis, does IP theft really constitute an emergency?

                          While most employers would categorically say ‘yes,’ at least one court has said ‘no’. The Northern District of Illinois recently held that an immediate hearing on a temporary restraining order to prevent misappropriation would not qualify as an emergency during the global coronavirus pandemic.1 In the case of Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement, claiming the defendant had infringed on its unicorn and elf designs.2 The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, and the court, which had previously issued an order temporarily holding all civil litigation in abeyance, scheduled the hearing for a few weeks later “to protect the health and safety of our community.”3 The court rejected plaintiff’s request for an earlier hearing date, stating: “Plaintiff recognizes that the community is in the midst of a ‘coronavirus pandemic.’ But Plaintiff argues that it will suffer an ‘irreparable injury’ if this Court does not hold a hearing this week and immediately put a stop to the infringing unicorns and the knock-off elves. . . The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not.4 Further elaborating on its decision, the court noted that “a hearing -- even a telephonic one -- would take time and consume valuable court resources,” which are “stretched [thin] and time is at a premium.”5

                          At least one other court has suggested that a “routine” discovery dispute does not qualify as an emergency under similar circumstances. In C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), the defendant filed “an emergency motion for a protective order . . . concerning a routine snafu over the date of a corporate representative deposition.”6 Much like the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida concluded that in the midst of a pandemic, a “corporate representative deposition is hardly critical. It is, in fact, routine.” “If all the issues we are currently facing were to be organized on a ladder of importance, this deposition-scheduling dispute would not even reach the bottom rung of a 10-rung ladder.”7

                          Notwithstanding the orders in Art Ask Agency and C.W., multiple courts have specifically enumerated procedures for hearing temporary restraining orders during the pandemic. For example, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Supreme Courts in Washington and Colorado have all issued orders expressly enumerating temporary restraining orders as “emergency motions”, and each is permitting modified versions of these proceedings to continue during the pandemic.8 Connecticut courts have similarly continued to hear ex parte motions.9

                          Given today’s climate, parties should consider whether the emergency motion that they intend to bring is really an emergency. As Judge Elizabeth Stong of the federal Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York recently said:  “Truly urgent matters can and will be addressed. But you have to understand that not everything that feels urgent is. Pause before you file that letter or make that phone call. Be sure it’s urgent.”10



                          1   Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto, C.A. No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383/gov.uscourts.ilnd.374383.27.0_1.pdf.

                          2   Id.

                          3  Id.

                          4  Id.

                          5   Id.

                          6  C.W. v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2020), slip op., available: https://www.law360.com/articles/1257629/judge-blasts-attys-for-bickering-in-midst-of-a-pandemic-.

                          7  Id.

                          8 See Superior Court of Los Angeles County: COVID-19 Emergency Order (http://www.lacourt.org/pdf/COVID-19EMERGENCYORDER-ESSENTIALPROCEEDINGS_32620.pdf); Supreme Court of Washington April 13, 2020 Revised and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations. (http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700B615%20Revised%20and%20Extended%20Order%20Regarding%20Court%20Operations.pdf); Colorado Supreme Court March 16, 2020 Order Regarding COVID-19 and Operation of Colorado State Courts (https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Opinion_Docs/COVID-19%20Order%2016Mar2020(1).pdf).

                          9  COVID-19 Information From the Connecticut Judicial Branch  (https://jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm).

                          IsRss:
                          • employment
                          • client alerts

                          5 comments

                          Leave a comment
                          1. rogerlagasca | Jul 06, 2020
                          2. rogerlagasca | Jul 03, 2020
                          3. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                          4. rogerlagasca | Jul 02, 2020
                          5. rogerlagasca | Jul 01, 2020

                            Leave a comment

                            KEY CONTACTS