On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Government Investigations 2017: Investigations Arising From Data Breach and Privacy Concerns and Parallel Proceedings

Released on: Mar. 1, 2017
Running Time: 03:10:42

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.

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 03:10:42]

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


  • Introduction and Explanation of the Hypothetical* [00:04:53]
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Scope and Limits of Government Investigation of a Data Breach [01:06:45]
    Tracy Greer, Christine M. Ryall, Allison C. Stanton, Kenneth J. Withers, David C. Shonka
  • Responding to the Investigation [01:00:03]
    Patrick Butts, Manfred J. Gabriel, Sandra Rampersaud, Divonne Smoyer, Kenneth J. Withers, Kiriaki Tourikis, Jason M. Silverman
  • Parallel Civil Proceedings [00:59:00]
    Jeane A. Thomas, Kenneth J. Withers, Carrie S. Parikh, Hon. Thomas I. Vanaskie, Alison A. Grounds

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Federal Trade Commission, Protecting Personal Information: A Guide for Business (October 2016)
    David C. Shonka
  • The Department of Homeland Security, The Department of Justice: Final Procedures Related to the Receipt of Cyber Threat Indicators and Defensive Measures by the Federal Government (June 15, 2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Federal Trade Commission, The NIST Cybersecurity Framework and the FTC (August 31, 2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Federal Trade Commission, the “Sharing” Economy: Issues Facing Platforms, Participants & Regulators, an FTC Staff Report (November 2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Consent Order: In the Matter of Dwolla, Inc., United States of America, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, File No. 2016-CFPB-0007 (February 27, 2016)
    Glenn Melcher
  • System Safeguards Testing Requirements; Final Rule, 17 CFR Parts 37, 38 and 49, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (September 19, 2016)
    Christine M. Ryall
  • System Safeguards Testing Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations; Final Rule, 17 CFR Part 39, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (September 19, 2016)
    Christine M. Ryall
  • Federal Trade Commission, Start with Security: A Guide for Business, Lessons Learned from FTC Cases (June 2015)
    David C. Shonka
  • Federal Trade Commission, Data Breach Response: A Guide for Business (September 2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • The Sedona Conference®, International Principles for Addressing Data Protection in Cross-Border Government & Internal Investigations: Principles, Commentary, and Best Practices (2017)
    Kenneth J. Withers
  • Assurance of Voluntary Compliance; In the Matter of Adobe Systems Inc. (2016)
    Divonne Smoyer
  • Assurance of Voluntary Compliance; In the Matter of Adobe Systems Inc. (2016)
    Divonne Smoyer
  • Assurance of Voluntary Compliance; In the Matter of Adobe Systems Inc. (2016)
    Divonne Smoyer
  • Assurance of Voluntary Compliance; In the Matter of Adobe Systems Inc. (2016)
    Divonne Smoyer
  • Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, Proposed 23 NYCRR 500, New York State Department of Financial Services (2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Sample News Release: Progressive Motors in Trouble (November 22, 2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Ashish Prasad & Julie Richer, Production of Documents to Federal Agencies, In-House Defense Quarterly, Fall 2016
    Ashish Prasad, Julie Richer
  • California Department of Justice, Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit, California Data Breach Report (February 2016)
    Divonne Smoyer
  • 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)
    Kenneth J. Withers

Presentation Material


  • PLI: Government Civil Investigations-Data Breach Incidents
    Tracy Greer, Christine M. Ryall, David C. Shonka, Allison C. Stanton, Kenneth J. Withers
  • Responding To The Investigation
    Patrick Butts, Manfred J. Gabriel, Sandra Rampersaud , Jason M. Silverman, Divonne Smoyer, Kiriaki Tourikis, Kenneth J. Withers
  • In Re: HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION
    Alison A. Grounds, Carrie S. Parikh, Jeane A. Thomas, Hon. Thomas I. Vanaskie, Kenneth J. Withers
  • Parallel Civil Proceedings
    Alison A. Grounds, Carrie S. Parikh, Jeane A. Thomas, Hon. Thomas I. Vanaskie, Kenneth J. Withers
  • The Sedona Conference Commentary on Privacy and Information Security: Principles and Guidelines for Lawyers, Law Firms, and Other Legal Service Providers
    Kenneth J. Withers
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
Tracy Greer ~ U.S. Department of Justice
Alison A. Grounds ~ Managing Director, Troutman Sanders eMerge
Carrie S. Parikh ~ Vice President - Legal, Wyndham Hotel Group
Sandra Rampersaud ~ Executive Director, UBS AG
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
Divonne Smoyer ~ Reed Smith LLP
Allison C. Stanton ~ Director of E-Discovery, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice -- Civil Division
Jeane A. Thomas ~ Crowell & Moring LLP
Kiriaki Tourikis ~ Vice President, JPMorgan Chase & Co
Hon. Thomas I. Vanaskie ~ United States Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Kenneth J. Withers ~ The Sedona Conference
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:  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 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.


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 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.

 

Share
Email

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

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.