Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Gibbons P.C.

Gibbons Environmental Law Department Congratulates Former Director Shawn LaTourette on Being Named NJDEP Acting Commissioner

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On January 14, 2021

The Gibbons Environmental Law Department proudly congratulates former Director Shawn LaTourette on his being named Acting Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) by Governor Murphy. Shawn joined the Gibbons Environmental Law Department as an associate in 2015 where he was provided with a supportive platform on which to develop and expand his legal and environmental skills. Recognizing his significant talent, Gibbons elevated him to Director in 2018. Shortly thereafter, he was tapped to serve as Chief Counsel for the NJDEP. During his time at Gibbons, he was an integral part of the Environmental Law Department where he worked on complex environmental litigation matters under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act and the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as well as other significant litigation matters involving contract and common law claims between private parties. He also represented clients in cutting-edge permitting and regulatory compliance matters, and on brownfields redevelopment projects. “We are extremely proud of Shawn, and we are glad that our department was able to enhance his development as an environmental attorney such that he has been able to succeed so profoundly in public service,” said Camille V. Otero, Director and Chair of the Gibbons Environmental Law Department. “Shawn was a vital part of our Department’s...

Former Gibbons Director Shawn LaTourette Named NJDEP Acting Commissioner

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On January 13, 2021

Shawn LaTourette, formerly a Director in the Environmental Department at Gibbons P.C., has been named Acting Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), as announced by New Jersey Governor Murphy earlier today. Mr. LaTourette previously served as NJDEP Chief Counsel. Mr. LaTourette joined Gibbons in 2015 as an associate and was promoted to Director in 2018, prior to joining the NJDEP. At Gibbons, his practice focused on environmental and closely related legal fields, in both litigation and transactional settings involving environmental conditions, land use, and development. He helped clients across various industries manage compliance with and enforcement of state and federal environmental and land use laws, including their application to commercial, real estate, construction, and infrastructure transactions. At Gibbons, Mr. LaTourette was the firm’s go-to lawyer to handle all environmental aspects of our clients’ real property acquisitions, developments and redevelopments, and construction projects, which included some of the most high-profile real estate, construction, and infrastructure matters in New Jersey. “When he was here, all of us at Gibbons recognized that Shawn was a rising leader in the environmental bar in New Jersey and throughout the region,” said Patrick C. Dunican Jr., Chairman and Managing Director of the firm. “We are delighted to congratulate him on proving us right.” For an article on...

CREMA Provides the Framework for the Regulated Recreational Cannabis Industry in New Jersey, but Disincentivizes Businesses From Seeking to Achieve Certain Legislative Goals

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On January 13, 2021

In November 2020, New Jersey voters passed the referendum to add an amendment to the State Constitution for the legalization of recreational cannabis by a resounding margin of 2 to 1. The amendment went into effect as of January 1, 2021; however, implementation and the establishment of the legal recreational cannabis market requires further legislative and regulatory action. As the first step in this process, the State Assembly and Senate each passed the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (“CREMA”). CREMA is the result of tireless legislative negotiation that began well before the November 2020 vote. The end result includes provisions aimed at public policy and social justice considerations, and at creating a competitive business marketplace. For example, under CREMA, the Legislature takes effort to address the disproportionate negative impacts that cannabis prohibition has had on Black New Jerseyans and other minority communities. With the goal of promoting social equity and redressing the historical impact of unequal application of drug laws on minority communities, CREMA provides priority for license applications to businesses located in “impact zones,” which are defined as municipalities that have a population of 120,000 or more or that rank in the top 40 percent for cannabis-related arrests, and mandates that at least 70 percent of tax revenue on...

Pushing the Limit: The District of Oregon Concludes that the Attorney-Client Privilege May Apply to Communications Not Involving Attorneys

by

Posted in General Litigation

On December 22, 2020

In Ozgur v. Daimler Trucks N. Am. LLC, Judge Mosman, from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, found that certain emails in the possession of Daimler Trucks North America LLC (“Daimler”) and that were sought by plaintiff were protected by the attorney-client privilege, as the communications were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, despite some of the emails not including an attorney as an author or recipient. In this action, plaintiff filed suit against Daimler for age discrimination in connection with his unsuccessful job application for a position opening posted by Daimler. The position that Daimler posted was already held by a foreign national whom Daimler sought to sponsor for a H1B1 visa so that he could remain in his position. In order to sponsor its employee, Daimler had to advertise the position and establish that there were no U.S. citizens who were willing and able to perform the position, then submit such proof to the Department of Labor. To assist in complying with the Department of Labor and immigration laws, Daimler retained outside immigration counsel. The emails disputed in this proceeding were communications involving outside counsel and Daimler employees, including a recruiting manager and a hiring manager. In determining whether the disputed emails were privileged, the court stated...

USEPA Provides Draft Guidance on Application of “Functional Equivalent” Analysis for Clean Water Act Permitting Program

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On December 16, 2020

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a Draft Guidance Memorandum regarding how to apply the Supreme Court’s most recent Clean Water Act decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund from earlier this year. In that case (which we previously wrote about here and here), the Court held that the Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program requires a permit where there is a “functional equivalent of a direct discharge” from a “point source” into “navigable waters.” As the USEPA draft guidance notes, the Court’s decision outlines “seven non-exclusive factors that regulators and the regulated community may consider in determining whether a “functional equivalent of a direct discharge” exists in a particular circumstance. The draft guidance aims to place the functional equivalent standard “into context within existing NPDES permitting framework.” Additionally, the draft guidance “identifies an additional factor” relevant to the analysis. The draft guidance emphasizes that the County of Maui decision did not modify the two threshold conditions that trigger the requirements for a permit. These conditions are that there must be an actual discharge of a pollutant to a water of the United States, and that that discharge must be from a point source. “Instead, Maui clarified that an NPDES permit is required for only...

Section 230: What Is It and Why Is Everyone Talking About It?

by

Posted in Federal Legislation

On December 10, 2020

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“Section 230”), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), has garnered significant attention in the media in recent months. But what is Section 230 and why are both President Trump and President-Elect Biden talking about its repeal? Section 230 is commonly referred to as the 26 words that created the internet. It ensures that an online platform can host and transmit third-party content without the liability that attaches to a publisher or speaker under defamation law, and encourages self-regulation by allowing online platforms to remove offensive content in good faith from their platforms. 47 U.S.C. §§ 230(c)(1)-(2). Yelp, Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia have flourished in part because of the simultaneous protection from liability for defamatory statements posted by third-party users and from the removal of harmful or discriminatory content. Some believe that repealing Section 230 is long overdue, because what started out as a law meant to reward online platforms that remove harmful content in good faith has transformed into a broad liability shield. In one circumstance, that protection extended even to an online platform that recommended terrorist content to a user based on that user’s preferences. See Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Others argue that the repeal of Section 230 would have many...

More Than $750,000 Awarded in TAR Fees Serves as Both Warning and Guidance to E-Discovery Practitioners

by

Posted in General Litigation

On December 1, 2020

Last month, we discussed a recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.,  in which the court granted defendant’s motion to shift costs for electronically stored information (ESI) related to expenses incurred undertaking Technology Assisted Review (TAR) for approximately 322,000 documents, at plaintiff’s insistence. The court reasoned that there was good cause warranting cost-shifting because plaintiff insisted on pursuing TAR after it became disproportionate to the needs of the case. Recently, the court entertained defendant’s fee application, in which defendant sought $791,700.21 in expenses incurred in connection with TAR and $83,000 in costs and fees incurred conferring with plaintiff and related motion practice. Plaintiff objected to the amount sought, arguing that reasonable TAR expenses did not exceed $330,000. The court ultimately awarded defendant $754,029.46 in TAR-related expenses and a yet-to-be determined amount of expenses in connection with the fee application. In reviewing the fee application, the court noted that its finding of disproportionality was only reinforced by the parties’ intervening cross-motions for summary judgment, in which only one of the almost 100 exhibits submitted by plaintiff originated from defendant’s TAR production. This lone exhibit was submitted “to support an unremarkable factual contention.” In determining the amount of expenses to allocate to plaintiff, the court examined...

Court Dismisses Complaint and Sanctions Plaintiff for Fabricating ESI

by

Posted in General Litigation

On November 24, 2020

The Southern District of New York recently issued significant sanctions in a case with a background story fit for Hollywood. In Carrington v. Graden, plaintiff brought claims against entertainment giants Paramount Pictures and Viacom, Inc. for sexual misconduct, unfair competition, fraud, misappropriation, federal antitrust violations, and New York State and City labor violations. Plaintiff attached various exhibits to his complaint that contained emails purportedly between defendants and non-parties. After it was discovered, through an arduous cat-and-mouse game between defendants and plaintiff, that plaintiff completely fabricated the emails that were presented in support of his claim, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice against all defendants and granted defendants’ application for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with their work regarding the authenticity of the emails. At the onset of the litigation, defendants sent plaintiff’s counsel a preservation notice for electronically stored information (ESI) and documents, after noting that the documents plaintiff referenced and attached as exhibits to his complaint “appeared highly questionable and inaccurate.” Significantly, the emails were not produced as native-format email communications, rather, they were all produced as email forwards from plaintiff to his attorney. Defendants, as part of a pre-motion submission to the court in connection with their anticipated motion to dismiss, submitted affidavits from the individuals who were represented as...

David J. Freeman to Co-Chair N.Y. State Bar Superfund and Brownfields Update Webinar

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On November 18, 2020

David J. Freeman, a Director in the Gibbons Environmental Department, will serve as Program Co-Chair for “Superfund/Brownfield Update 2020: Federal and State Environmental Law and Policy.” The program is sponsored by the Section of Environmental & Energy Law of the New York State Bar Association and will be presented as a webinar on December 2 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The program will feature presentations by representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York Attorney General’s Office, and private bar and expert consultants regarding recent developments in the federal Superfund and New York State Brownfield programs. There will also be panels discussing the proposed new ASTM standards for the conduct of Phase I environmental site assessments and the operation of New York State’s land banks. The keynote speaker will be Julie Tighe, President of the New York League of Conservation Voters and New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. Her timely topic will be “How the 2020 Election Will Affect the Environmental Agenda at the Federal and State Levels.” A full description of the program, and instructions on how to register, can be found here.

Federal Court Sanctions Defense Attorney Under § 1927 for Unreasonably Vexatious Conduct During Discovery

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On November 12, 2020

A Minnesota federal court recently issued a stern warning to attorneys and litigants who ignore court orders and fail to make any effort to engage in meet and confers during the discovery process. In Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, et al., the District Court for the District of Minnesota ordered a defense attorney to pay $25,000 in attorney’s fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, in addition to other forms of sanctions for the attorney’s “pervasive discovery misconduct.” This case arose from plaintiff’s claims against defendants “after a corporation acquisition went wrong.” The litigation has a tortured procedural history during which the parties fought for almost two years over various discovery disputes, a number of which involved the format of production of certain documents. The parties had participated in a telephonic conference in late 2018, during which time the court ordered defendants to produce ESI in the same manner that plaintiff was required to produce ESI. Following that conference, a number of issues arose with respect to defendants’ production, and counsel for the defendants (at that time) agreed to make a supplemental production to resolve the technical issues. Defendants then obtained new counsel, and the new counsel proceeded to file a motion to compel without: (1) first reviewing the status of documents that had...

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories