Given the high “abuse of discretion” standard of review, any time a discovery ruling is altered or reversed by New York’s Appellate Division, the legal community must take note. Such a decision has the potential to affect...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
On May 7, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated an opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based on the so-called principle of party presentation. ...more
On May 7, 2020, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67, holding that, absent extraordinary circumstances, courts must adhere to the principle of party presentation and decide only those questions...more
Kelly v. United States, No. 18-1059: When the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey refused to back then-Governor Chris Christie’s reelection campaign, the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, and others punished the...more
A Review of 2017 Personal Jurisdiction Decisions - In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California continued the trend that began in...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more
Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland patent-venue decision, the constitutionality of inter...more
Let’s say you’re a plaintiff in a federal action and you’re seeking class certification. The district court denies your motion. ...more
On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit again vacated a District Court’s Order denying enforcement of an administrative subpoena issued to an employer by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...more
Patentee’s Unnecessarily Broad Prosecution Disclaimer Affirmed by Federal Circuit - In Technology Properties Limited LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2016-1306, -1307, -1309, -1310, -1311, the Federal...more
Ruth Featherstone alleged that her former employer (SCPMG) discriminated against her based on a "temporary disability" that was caused by an adverse drug reaction, which resulted in an "altered mental state." During this...more
The Supreme Court’s recent McLane Company v. EEOC decision addresses the constraints placed on appellate review of actions to enforce or quash broadly written Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) subpoenas. The case...more
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court confirmed that federal appeals courts should apply a deferential standard of review to federal district court determinations regarding the legal sufficiency of EEOC subpoenas....more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on April 3, 2017, in McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a case which presented the question of what the appropriate standard of appellate...more
Recently, in McLane Co., Inc. v. EEOC, case number 15-1248 , the United States Supreme Court clarified the standard for when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s order to enforce or quash a subpoena from the EEOC....more
In a disturbingly increasing number of charge investigations, employers have faced broad information requests from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), including requests that appear unrelated to the charging...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that appellate courts must utilize the deferential “abuse-of-discretion” standard when evaluating a ruling on a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2327 (U.S. 2017), a decision that clarifies the scope of review for employers facing...more
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit court split regarding the standard of review applicable to district court decisions that evaluate the enforceability of EEOC investigative subpoenas and held yesterday that an abuse...more
Under Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has the authority to issue subpoenas for documents relevant to its investigations. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in McLane Co. v. EEOC, which issued...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in two cases today: McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248: Damiana Ochoa filed a discrimination charge against petitioner McLane Co. when she was terminated after...more
In a 7 to 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that courts of appeals should largely defer to lower courts’ decisions when policing subpoenas issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). By...more
On April 3, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in McLane Co. v. EEOC, addressing how federal courts review subpoenas that the EEOC issues while investigating charges of employment discrimination. McLane involved...more
In SCA v. First Quality Baby Products, the Supreme Court holds that laches should not be available as a defense in patent cases, refusing to concur with the Circuit’s en banc holding that the Patent Act’s 6-year limitation on...more