When Form Meets Substance: Two Fifth Circuit Decisions Chart the Boundary Lines of Summary Judgment

Baker Donelson
Contact

Baker Donelson

Murky waters swirl in the legal gulf that separates the absence of any “genuine dispute[s] as to any material fact” (in which case summary judgment is appropriate); and the presence of non-speculative “evidence [on which] a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” (in which case summary judgment is not appropriate and the case must be fully tried to the fact finder). Two recent Fifth Circuit decisions, however, have plumbed these depths and charted a truer course (if only slightly) for navigating maritime summary judgments – although the two decisions resulted in diametrically opposed outcomes.

Jones v. United States

First, Jones v. United States, 2019 WL 4050462 (5th Cir. 8/28/19); — F. 3d — (which the Court has designated for publication) involved claims for Jones Act negligence and general maritime law unseaworthiness/maintenance and cure by a seaman who allegedly injured his arm when he slipped and fell on the U.S. government-owned vessel M/V CAPE KNOX. The CAPE KNOX (moored in the Mississippi River at the mouth of the Industrial Canal in New Orleans), is one of the U.S.’s strategic sealift “Ready Reserve Fleet” of merchant vessels, owned by the government and operated by Keystone Shipping Company, and manned with a skeleton crew to maintain the vessels in working order and preparedness for mobilization in the event national defense/security so requires.

Jones claimed that during his night rounds, as he was lifting his left foot over a nine-inch coaming while entering the diesel generator room, his right foot slipped on grease. However, Jones testified that he did not actually see any grease (although he had a flashlight) and the incident report he completed immediately afterwards did not mention grease at all. Jones claimed the grease would have come from the cables located above the weather deck, which are greased regularly resulting in grease dropping onto the weather decks and then being tracked into the generator room. The district court, sitting as the non-jury trier of fact in an admiralty claim against the U.S. (pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30903(b)) granted summary judgment and dismissed Jones’ claim, notwithstanding the “featherweight” causation standard for Jones Act negligence claims (which provides that a Jones Act negligence claimant can prove causation if he can show that “employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury,” 2019 WL 4050462, *2).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed and did so by clarifying/reaffirming two important procedural points for summary judgment practice in a Jones Act claim.

First, after setting out the well-known summary judgment standard (i.e., no genuine dispute as to any material fact, non-movant must present actual evidence to show a genuine dispute and cannot rely on speculation, improbable inferences, or unsubstantiated assertions), the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed a critically important procedural aspect of summary judgment practice in non-jury bench tried cases (which includes many types of admiralty cases):

We have held that [i]n a non-jury case, such as this one, a district court has somewhat greater discretion to consider what weight it will accord the evidence. When deciding a motion for summary judgment prior to a bench trial, the district court has the limited discretion to decide that the same evidence, presented to him or her as a trier of fact in a plenary trial, could not possibly lead to a different result.

2019 WL 4050462, at *2. In other words, when the same judge/fact-finder considering the summary judgment record would be considering the same facts/evidence/testimony at trial, it makes practical, efficient sense for the judge to be able to draw inferences/make “judgment calls” that would technically be left to the jury if the case were to be jury tried. The only exception to this broader discretion for summary judgment in a bench-tried case is that the judge cannot draw inferences that involve issues of witness credibility or disputed material facts. See In re Placid Oil Co., 932 F.2d 394, 398 (5th Cir. 1991).

Jones argued that his testimony asserting that there was “grease in many places on the ship’s deck” was sufficient to avoid summary judgment, and that the trial court’s rejection of that testimony was essentially a prohibited credibility determination. Further, Jones contended that the trial court made de facto credibility determinations when it accepted the U.S.’s affidavits (indicating there was no grease present) over Jones’ expert affidavit.

The Fifth Circuit, however, rejected this argument because grease somewhere on the vessel did not provide specific evidence of grease in the location of the incident:

[S]peculation cannot defeat summary judgment on a required element of the claim. We of course follow the Supreme Court’s instruction that “entirely circumstantial” evidence can prove a Jones Act claim. But grease elsewhere on the ship’s deck at various times is not “probative” circumstantial evidence that can withstand summary judgment. If Jones returned to the hatch that night or the next morning and saw grease where he slipped, things might be different. But Jones never saw grease in the spot where he slipped, even when he later investigated his fall. As we [have] explained in [other Jones Act jurisprudence] “[t]he path from worker injury to employer liability.” Evidence that other parts of the ship were slippery at other times does not do so.

Moreover, Jones’ expert’s only basis for the presence of grease was Jones’ own inconclusive testimony about grease elsewhere on the vessel; and thus, his unsubstantiated, conclusory opinion was not a fact that could defeated summary judgment.

Jones also argued that the trial court’s decision effectively creates a rule requiring a personal injury plaintiff to immediately investigate the circumstances of his accident, which is unfair. The Fifth Circuit rejected this as well, noting that the trial court “did not fault Jones’s investigation or lack thereof but simply held that no summary-judgment evidence, however it might have been developed, reached the fact of whether Jones slipped on grease.” Id. at *3.

In short, in venerable admiralty Judge John R. Brown’s words, there must be evidence of causative fault, “not merely fault in the abstract.” Bd. of Comm’rs of Port of New Orleans v. M/V Farmsum, 574 F.2d 289, 297 (5th Cir. 1978).

Second, the Fifth Circuit rejected Jones’ argument that the trial court’s ruling violated the “featherweight” causation standard for Jones Act negligence on similar grounds: “The causation standard for Jones Act negligence is “slight[ ],” well below the common-law standard… [b]ut it is not no standard at all. Id. This is an important, strong confirmation that while Jones Act negligence does require a lower standard of causation, it is not a foregone conclusion in every case, and a plaintiff should be required present some positive evidence of causation to defeat summary judgment.

Finally, as to Jones’ unseaworthiness claim, the Fifth Circuit confirmed the intuitive result that because he was unable to “show [causation] under the lighter Jones Act standard” he likewise could not do so for his unseaworthiness claim (even though a greasy deck would be an unseaworthy condition), because that claim requires the heightened showing of “proximate causation.” Id. at *4. In other words, if he could not meet the featherweight standard for Jones Act negligence, he could not meet the more demanding “proximate cause” standard for unseaworthiness.

Thus, the two important takeaways from the Jones decision are (1) the judge in a bench-tried matter has more discretion to grant summary judgment evidence on the record before the court; and (2) Jones Act negligence requires some evidence of causation, notwithstanding the “featherweight” standard of proof. And while the Jones decision was in the Jones Act negligence context, these same principles should apply in any bench-tried admiralty case.

Manson Gulf, L.L.C. v. Lafleur

On the polar opposite end of the summary judgment spectrum, the Fifth Circuit in Manson Gulf, L.L.C. v. Lafleur, 2019 WL 4124431 (5th Cir. 8/29/19) (unpublished, per curiam) affirmed the trial judge’s post-trial ruling – which came after a prior Fifth Circuit reversal of the same trial judge’s grant of summary judgment (see Manson Gulf, L.L.C v. Modern Am. Recycling Serv., Inc., 878 F.3d 130, 133 (5th Cir. 2017)) – in a wrongful death action arising from an offshore worker’s fall through a hole in the grating of an offshore platform that was being deconstructed.

By way of background, the Fifth Circuit’s earlier summary judgment reversal was previously reported on this blog, and had been based on the “open and obvious” doctrine. Specifically, the district court had previously held as a matter of undisputed fact and law that the vessel owner servicing the deconstruction project had no duty/liability under the Scinida “turnover duty” framework, detailed in our prior blog post. Specifically, the district court ruled that the open hole in the platform was “open and obvious” because the platform was in the process of being taken part, and because the missing grating/hole was (or should have been) “open and obvious” to a reasonably competent stevedore/offshore worker engaged in a platform deconstruction. This was despite the fact that witnesses confirmed that these types of open holes in platform grating are typically marked during deconstruction operations.

However, the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment – even though the case was being tried to the bench, thus affording the trial judge more discretion to weigh the evidence and draw inferences – specifically (1) because there was conflicting testimony – and thus credibility issues to be considered – from the lone witness to the accident about whether/how the hole in the grating was obvious; and (2) based on color photographs of the site/hole in question, which the Court used to support its determination that the evidence was in conflict, thus precluding summary judgment.

With this background, the intuitive presumption would be that the same trial judge who had summarily dismissed the case on summary judgment under the “open and obvious” doctrine would have been very unlikely to be swayed to a different conclusion – or would at least find substantial comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff. However, in the Fifth Circuit’s more recent treatment of Manson, the precise opposite happened. After reversal of summary judgment and remand, the case was sent back down to the trial court for a full trial on the merits, and somewhat surprisingly, the trial judge found for the plaintiff – with  zero percent comparative fault – effectively reversing his prior determination on “open and obviousness” and awarding over $4.2 million in damages. The district court’s post-trial liability ruling focused on witness testimony regarding Manson’s failure to mark the hole as per standard industry practice (a factor it had previously minimized in its reversed summary judgment ruling).

On appeal, Manson argued that the district court erred in excluding its expert testimony regarding the hazards to be expected during platform scrapping. Notably, the district court did not assign reasons for the exclusion of this expert, but the context indicates he was stricken on the premise that his testimony would not be helpful to the court as finder of fact precisely because the question was whether the hole in the grating was “open and obvious” (which cannot, as a practical matter, be informed by any expert testimony). The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument outright under “highly deferential” standard of review for a trial court’s discretion to admit/exclude experts – which is even higher in a bench-tried case.

Likewise, the court rejected all Manson’s other arguments on liability, essentially on the highly deferential standard of review for the trial court’s findings of fact. The only issue on which Manson prevailed was the reversal of prejudgment interest on future damages (under the Fifth Circuit’s well-established rule that “prejudgment interest may not be awarded for future damages in admiralty cases,” 2019 WL 4124431 at *3.

The dramatic difference in outcome in Manson – from a  no money/zero percent liability summary judgment dismissal, to a $4.2 million 100 percent liability verdict – demonstrates in real commercial terms the very thin boundary line separating the gulf between “no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and credibility issues/disputed evidence sufficient to prove liability.

Juxtaposing Jones with Manson gives litigants not only a good framework for the mechanics/procedure of how to successfully prosecute/defend against summary judgment, but also a stark and tangible example of how fine the line between form and substance, victory and defeat, can be.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Baker Donelson | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Baker Donelson
Contact
more
less

Baker Donelson on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.