On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Government Investigations 2016: Handling Corporate Investigations Resulting from a Breach of Electronic Information and Parallel Proceedings

Released on: Mar. 29, 2016
Running Time: 03:07:51

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:06:53] Scope and Limits of Government Investigation of a Data Breach Matthew F Fitzsimmons ~ Assistant Attorney General, Department Head - Privacy and Data Security Department, Connecticut Office of the Attorney General
David C Shonka ~ Principal Deputy General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission
Christine M Ryall ~ U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Travis LeBlanc ~ Chief, Bureau of Enforcement, Federal Communications Commission
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:54:59] Responding to the Investigation Sandra J Rampersaud ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Manfred J Gabriel ~ Principal, KPMG LLP/Forensic Technology Services
Jay Sonbolian ~ Principal, Ernst & Young LLP
Jessica Perazzelli Ross ~ Vice President, Counsel, Deutsche Bank AG
Taylor Hoffman ~ Global Head of eDiscovery Management, Senior Vice President, Swiss Re America Holding Corporation
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:43] Parallel Civil Proceedings Carrie S Parikh ~ Specialty Lines Claims - Technology, Media and Business Services, Beazley
Jamie Brown ~ Executive Director and Global eDiscovery Counsel, UBS AG
Prof. Vikramaditya Khanna ~ William W. Cook Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
William P Butterfield ~ Hausfeld LLP
Amy Walker Wagner ~ Stone & Magnanini LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4

Corporations and other organizations create, store, and utilize that information in all facets of business. Unfortunately, corporate electronic information can be breached and any such breach can lead to investigations by various government agencies at the federal and State levels. Those investigations may lead to disputes about scope and the volume of corporate information to be produced.

This program will explore the role of electronic information through a hypothetical breach of a corporation’s information that leads to an investigation and that will focus on the “what, why and how” an investigation is conducted – from the viewpoint of the investigating agencies and of the corporate representatives charged with responding to the investigation. The program will then consider a hypothetical class action that parallels the investigation and how that parallel litigation interacts with the investigation.

Our faculty, which includes regulators, counsel and consultants experienced in government investigations and parallel proceedings, will address various aspects of government investigations and parallel proceedings with a focus on requests for and production of electronic information in investigations and proceedings.

You will learn:

  • What triggers a government investigation?
  • What is the scope of a government investigation?
  • What are the limitations on a government investigation?
  • What might the government demand in an investigation and how might a corporate entity respond to such a demand?
  • What room for negotiation exists between a corporate entity and the government?
  • What is the role of -- and relationship between -- parallel civil proceedings and government investigations, and how might these be coordinated?

This program will be of interest to in-house and retained counsel, as well as corporate officers and other personnel who find – or may find – their clients under investigation by federal or State regulators. The program will also benefit counsel for those clients – and for plaintiffs and their counsel – who litigate “parallel” civil actions in tandem with or subsequent to – investigations.

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:07:51]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks, Introduction and Explanation of the Hypothetical* [00:05:16]
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Scope and Limits of Government Investigation of a Data Breach [01:06:53]
    Christine M. Ryall, David C. Shonka, Travis LeBlanc, Matthew F. Fitzsimmons
  • Responding to the Investigation [00:54:59]
    Manfred J. Gabriel, Sandra J. Rampersaud, Taylor Hoffman, Jessica Perazzelli Ross, Jay Sonbolian
  • Parallel Civil Proceedings [01:00:43]
    William P. Butterfield, Prof. Vikramaditya Khanna, Amy Walker Wagner, Jamie Brown, Carrie S. Parikh

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Federal Trade Commission, Start with Security: A Guide for Business, Lessons Learned from FTC Cases (June 2015)
    David C. Shonka
  • Federal Trade Commission, Protecting Personal Information: A Guide for Business (November 2011)
    David C. Shonka
  • The Sedona Conference Commentary On Privacy and Information Security: Principles and Guidelines for Lawyers, Law Firms, and Other Legal Service Providers (November 2015)
    David C. Shonka
  • FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., et al., No. 14-3514 (October 24, 2015)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • For Release, Wyndham Settles FTC Charges It Unfairly Placed Consumers’ Payment Card Information At Risk, Federal Trade Commission (December 9, 2015)
    David C. Shonka
  • Stipulated Order of Injunction, FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., et al., No. 2:13-CV-01887-ES-JAD (December 9, 2015)
    David C. Shonka
  • CFPB Orders CarHop to Pay $6.4 Million Penalty for Jeopardizing Consumers’ Credit (December 17, 2015)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • In the Matter of Interstate Auto Group, Inc., Consent Order, File No. 2015-CFPB-0032 (December 17, 2015)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • For Release, LifeLock to Pay $100 Million to Consumers to Settle FTC Charges it Violated 2010 Order, FTC Alleged Company Violated Order’s Information Security Requirements, Misled Consumers With Deceptive Advertising (December 17, 2015)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief as to Defendants LifeLock and Davis, FTC v. LifeLock, Inc., U.S. District Court District of Arizona (February 23, 2010)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • For Immediate Release, United States Files Complaint Against Volkswagon, Audi and Porsche for Alleged Clean Air Act Violations, Department of Justice, Justice News (January 4, 2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Complaint, U.S. v. Volkswagon, No. 2:16-cv-10006-LJMMJH, (E.D. Mich.) (January 4, 2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • In the Matter of LabMD Inc., Docket No. 9357 (FTC Office of Administrative Law Judges Nov.13, 2015)
    David C. Shonka
  • Careful Connections, Building Security in the Internet of Things, Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition (January 2015)
    David C. Shonka
  • Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Fact Sheet—Notice of Proposed Rulemakings on System Safeguards Testing Requirements (December 16, 2015)
    Christine M. Ryall
  • Commodity Futures Trading Commissions, Q&A—Notice of Proposed Rulemakings on System Safeguards Testing Requirements (December 16, 2015)
    Christine M. Ryall
  • In the Matter of Interbank FX, LLC, Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions
    Christine M. Ryall
  • FCC-FTC Consumer Protection Memorandum of Understanding (November 16, 2015)
    Travis G. LeBlanc
  • FCC Enforcement Advisory, DA 15-603, “Enforcement Bureau Guidance: Broadband Providers Should Take Reasonable, Good Faith Steps to Protect Consumer Privacy (May 20, 2015)
    Travis G. LeBlanc
  • In the Matter of AT&T Services, Inc., Order and Consent Decree, DA 15-339, Federal Communications Commission (April 8, 2015)
    Travis G. LeBlanc
  • In the Matter of Cox Communications, Inc., Order and Consent Decree, DA 15-1241, Federal Communications Commission (November 5, 2015)
    Travis G. LeBlanc
  • In the Matter of TerraCom, Inc., and YourTel America, Inc., Order and Consent Decree, DA 15-776 (FCC: July 9, 2015)
    Travis LeBlanc
  • A Primer on FTC Expectations for Your Partner and Vendor Relationships: Enforcement Shows You Are Your Brother’s Keeper, Privacy and Security Law Report, Bloomberg BNA
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Letter from Anthony J. Albanese, Acting Superintendent of Financial Services, New York State Department of Financial Services, to Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee (FBIIC) Members re: “Potential New NYDFS Cyber Security Regulation Requirements” (November 9, 2015)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Closing Letter to Lisa J. Sotto, Hunton & Williams LLP, from Maneesha Mithal, Associate Director, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, FTC (August 10, 2015)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Final NAAG Data Breach Notification Letter
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Memorandum of Sally Quillian Yates
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Responding to the Government’s Civil Investigations, The Sedona Conference Journal, Volume 15 (2014)
    David C. Shonka
  • Request for Additional Information and Documentary Material Issued to Weebyewe Corporation (June 2015)
    Manfred J. Gabriel
  • Questionnaire on Electronically Stored Information (May 2014)
    Manfred J. Gabriel
  • Technology-Assisted Review and Other Discovery Initiatives at the Antitrust Division
    Manfred J. Gabriel, Tracy Greer
  • Discovery Guide (December 2, 2013)
    Manfred J. Gabriel
  • Model Request for Additional Information and Documentary Material (Second Request), Introductory Guide III, Hart-Scott-Rodino, Premerger Notification Program (August 2015)
    Manfred J. Gabriel
  • Bureau of Competition Production Guide, An e-Discovery Resource, Revision 1.6 (August 4, 2015)
    Manfred J. Gabriel
  • Data Delivery Standards, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (October 2014)
    Manfred J. Gabriel
  • Form of Production of ESI Documents in Response to the Second Request, U.S. Department of Justice
    Manfred J. Gabriel
  • Best Practices for Merger Investigations, Bureau of Competition (August 2015)
    Manfred J. Gabriel
  • Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Data Delivery Standards (August 10, 2015)
    Christine M. Ryall
  • If the FTC Comes to Call (May 20, 2015)
    Mark Eichorn
  • GM Pulls Bid for Case-Ending Sanction Due to Conflict with Criminal Deal, Digital Discovery & e-Evidence, Bloomberg BNA
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Bennek v. Ackerman, Complaint, No. 1:15-cv-2999, (N.D. Ga.) (September 2, 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner
  • In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 14-2522 (D. Minn.) (October 23, 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner
  • In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., Opinion and Order, 14-MD-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.) (Jan. 15, 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner
  • In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14-MD-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.) (Aug. 11, 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner
  • Enslin v. Coca-Cola Co., Memorandum Opinion, No. 2:14-cv-06476 (E.D. Pa.) (September 29, 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner
  • In re Zappos.com, Inc., Order, 3:12-cv-00325-RCJ-VPC MDL No. 2357 (D. Nev.) (June 1, 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner
  • Green v. eBay Inc., Order and Reasons, No. 14-1688, 2015 (E.D. La.) (May 4, 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner
  • Recall Total Info. Mgmt. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 317 Conn. 46 (Conn.) (May 26, 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner
  • Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. Ill. 2015)
    Amy Walker Wagner

Presentation Material


  • Scope and Limits of Government Investigation of a Data Breach
    David C. Shonka
  • Scope and Limits of Government Investigation of a Data Breach
    David C. Shonka
  • Responding to the Investigation
    Manfred J. Gabriel, Taylor Hoffman, Jessica Perazzelli Ross, Sandra J. Rampersaud, Jay Sonbolian
  • Parallel Civil Proceedings
    Jamie Brown, William P. Butterfield, Prof. Vikramaditya Khanna, Carrie S. Parikh, Amy Walker Wagner
Chairperson(s)
Ronald J. Hedges ~ Ronald J. Hedges, LLC
Moderator(s)
Manfred J. Gabriel ~ Principal, KPMG LLP/Forensic Technology Services
David C. Shonka ~ Principal Deputy General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission
Amy Walker Wagner ~ Stone & Magnanini LLP
Speaker(s)
Jamie Brown ~ Executive Director and Global eDiscovery Counsel, UBS AG
William P. Butterfield ~ Hausfeld LLP
Matthew F. Fitzsimmons ~ Assistant Attorney General, Department Head - Privacy and Data Security Department, Connecticut Office of the Attorney General
Taylor Hoffman ~ Global Head of eDiscovery Management, Senior Vice President, Swiss Re America Holding Corporation
Prof. Vikramaditya Khanna ~ William W. Cook Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Travis LeBlanc ~ Chief, Bureau of Enforcement, Federal Communications Commission
Carrie S. Parikh ~ Specialty Lines Claims - Technology, Media and Business Services, Beazley
Jessica Perazzelli Ross ~ Vice President, Counsel, Deutsche Bank AG
Sandra J. Rampersaud ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Christine M. Ryall ~ U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Jay Sonbolian ~ Principal, Ernst & Young LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Print Share Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2016 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.