On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Government Investigations 2018: Investigations Arising From Data Breach and Privacy Concerns and Parallel Proceedings

Released on: Feb. 20, 2018
Running Time: 03:11:54

Electronic information pervades our society. Corporations and other organizations create, store, and utilize that information in all facets of business. Unfortunately, security can be breached and any breach can lead to investigations by various government agencies at the federal and State levels. Those investigations may lead to disputes about scope, variety and volume of electronic 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. It 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 experienced regulators and attorneys, will address various aspects of government investigations and parallel proceedings with a focus on requests for and production of electronic information.


Lecture Topics [Total RunTime: 03:11:54]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:04:49]
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Scope and Limits of Goverment Investigation of a Data Breach [01:07:01]
    David C. Shonka, Kathleen McGee, Christine M. Ryall, Christina K. McGlosson-Wilson
  • Responding to the Investigation [01:00:47]
    Jason M. Silverman, Patrick Butts, Manfred J. Gabriel, Taa R. Grays
  • Parallel Civil Proceedings [00:59:17]
    Robin L. Greenwald, Carrie S. Parikh, Divonne Smoyer, Hon. Lisa Margaret Smith

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

COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • Hypothetical: New Release: Scanner, Inc., in Trouble (December 10, 2017)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • LabCFTC, A CFTC Primer on Virtual Currencies
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Request for Information Regarding Use of Alternative Data and Modeling Techniques in the Credit Process, Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 33, Docket No. CFPB-2017-0005 (CFPB: Feb. 14, 2017)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • FINRA, Regulatory Notice 17-18, Social Media and Digital Communications (April 2017)
  • Federal Trade Commission, Press Release, Acting FTC Chairman Ohlhausen Announces Internal Process Reforms: Reducing Burdens and Improving Transparency in Agency Investigations (July 17, 2017)
  • Federal Trade Commission, Press Release, Stick with Security: FTC to Provide Additional Insights on Reasonable Data Security Practices (July 21, 2017)
  • Federal Trade Commission, Start with Security: A Guide for Business, Lessons Learned from FTC Cases (June 2015)
  • United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, Internet of Things: Status and Implications of an Increasingly Connected World (May 2017)
  • H. Michael O’Brien, Wilson Elser, Product Liability Advocate, The Internet of Things: A Trifecta of Cyber and Physical Threat Risks (June 5, 2017)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • David C. Kully, Amy L. Fuentes, Holland & Knight LLP, DOJ and FTC Examine When Use of Computer Algorithms to Set Prices Might Violate Antitrust Laws (June 20, 2017)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Michael Scully, Cobun Keegan, IAPP Westin Research Center, IAPP Guide to FTC Privacy Enforcement
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law—§ 63(12)
  • Press Release, A.G. Schneiderman Announces Settlement with Tech Company Over Sale of Insecure Bluetooth Door and Padlocks (May 22, 2017)
  • New York State Department of Financial Services, Frequently Asked Questions Regarding 23 NYCRR Part 500 (Updated September 6, 2017)
  • New York State Department of Financial Services, Proposed 23 NYCRR 201, Registration Requirements & Prohibited Practices for Credit Reporting Agencies
  • FTC v. D-Link Systems, Inc., No. 17-cv-00039-JD, 2017 WL 4150873 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2017)
  • Shawn E. Tuma, Cybersecurity Compliance, Texas Bar Journal, December 2017
  • Information Commissioner’s Office, Preparing for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): 12 Steps to Take Now
  • DPO Network Europe, Should Your Company Appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO) Under the GDPR?
  • The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Conference Commentary on Privacy and Information Security: Principles and Guidelines for Lawyers, Law Firms, and Other Legal Service Providers (November 2015)
  • The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Conference Data Privacy Primer, Public Comment Version (January 2017)
  • The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Conference International Principles for Addressing Data Protection in Cross-Border Government & Internal Investigations: Principles, Commentary and Best Practices, Public Comment Version (May 2017)
  • Mark C. Mao, Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Sheila Pham, Megan Nicholls, Yanni Lin, Melanie Witte, Molly DiRago, Jonathan Yee, Julia Hoffman, Troutman Sanders LLP, Data Privacy: The Current Legal Landscape, Mid-Year Update (October 2017)
    Alison A. Grounds
  • Office of the Attorney General, Press Release, AG Report Reveals Data of Nearly 3 Million Washingtonians Compromised in Past Year (October 11, 2017)
  • Continuation of Hearing Entitled, “Examining the Equifax Data Breach,” Before the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee (prepared statement of Sara Cable, Assistant Attorney General and Director of Data Privacy & Security, Consumer Protection Division) (October 25, 2017)
  • Divonne Smoyer, Kimberly Chow, IAPP, The Privacy Advisor, A Q&A with Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt (September 26, 2017)
    Divonne Smoyer
  • Daniel R. Stoller, Runaway Ransomware in 2018? Look for Enforcers to Take Notice, Bloomberg Law, Digital Discovery & e-Evidence (December 7, 2017)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Opinion and Order, In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 3:15-md-2633-SI, 2017 WL 4857596 (D. Or. Oct. 27, 2017)
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Protection Principles: Consumer-Authorized Financial Data Sharing and Aggregation (October 18, 2017)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, §248.30 Procedures to safeguard customer records and information; disposal of consumer report information (December 13, 2017)
  • Order Instituting Administrative and Case-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order, In the Matter of R.T. Jones Capital Equities Mgmt., Inc., U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Admin. Proc. No. 3-16827 (Sept. 22, 2015)

Presentation Material


  • Government Investigations 2018: Investigations Arising From Data Breach and Privacy Concerns and Parallel Proceedings
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Frequently Asked Questions Regarding 23 NYCRR Part 500 (Updated 12/12/2017)
  • Producing Information from the EU to U.S. Government Agencies
    David C. Shonka
  • The General Counsel's Guide to Government Investigations
Chairperson(s)
Ronald J. Hedges ~ Dentons US LLP
Speaker(s)
Patrick Butts ~ Director of Legal Operations and Information Governance, Hilltop Securities Inc.
Manfred J. Gabriel ~ Principal, KPMG LLP/Forensic Technology Services
Taa R. Grays ~ VP & Associate General Counsel – Information Governance, MetLife
Robin L. Greenwald ~ Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.
Kathleen A. McGee ~ Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Christina K. McGlosson-Wilson ~ Senior Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, US Securities and Exchange Commission
Carrie S. Parikh ~ Vice President - Legal, Wyndham Hotel Group
Christine M. Ryall ~ Chief Trial Attorney, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
David C. Shonka ~ Acting General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission
Jason M. Silverman ~ Dentons US LLP
Hon. Lisa Margaret Smith ~ United States Magistrate Judge, SDNY
Divonne Smoyer ~ Reed Smith 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.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’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 9 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 “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded 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:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

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

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 15 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.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. 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 plicredits@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 plicredits@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.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.