Judge Gale’s approval last week of a class action settlement, in In re Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, 2018 NCBC 1 gives me another opportunity to rail against disclosure only settlements. You know that I don’t like them. If you don’t know that, I’ve written on this subject several times. Like here
The Defendant in SQL Sentry, LLC v. ApexSQL, LLC, 2017 NCBC 105 was alleged to have copied the Plaintiff’s software program which was designed to make "resource intensive T-SQL queries. . . in the Microsoft enterprise database platform, SQL Server." Op. Par. 5. (Ask your IT person).
Adding insult to injury, the Defendant marketed the
The North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure are fairly identical to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of any substantial differences.
But the lack of one word contained in FRCP 14 — "original" — but omitted from the parallel NC Rule made all the difference in the
You’ve probably never had to decide what it means to agree to arbitrate. Usually, there is a written provision that references the AAA Rules and includes a consent to AAA’s procedures as to the appointment of the arbitrator(s) and the conduct of the procedure. And most usually, the word "arbitration" is used in the
You probably thought that you would never again have to argue that a demand on a corporation’s board of directors before filing a derivative action should be excused because it would have been futile.
That’s because the North Carolina Legislature amended NC corporate law in 1995 to make clear that a demand on the corporation
.jpg)
The North Carolina General Assembly has decided to legislate choice of law in commercial transactions. The new statute, enacted in June, is called the "North Carolina Choice of Law and Forum in Business Contracts Act." It will be codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. §1G-1.
The Statute Applies Only To "Business Contracts"
The statute
.png)
I don’t think that there is anything worse than having a client get subpoenaed in a case to which it isn’t a party. It didn’t want to be drawn into someone else’s problem, to have to scour its records to respond to an unanticipated and intrusive request for documents, and to have to deal with the expense of an outside lawyer to handle the mess.
The good news is that Rule 45 provides greater protection to a non-party responding to a subpoena than it does to a party responding to discovery. Judge Conrad of the NC Business Court observed in a decision last week, Arris Group, Inc. v. CyberPower Systems (USA), Inc., 2017 NCBC 57, that “[t]he courts have an obligation to protect nonparties from burden and expense imposed without sufficient justification.”(quoting Bank of Am. Corp. v. SR Int’l Bus. Ins. Co., 2006 NCBC LEXIS 17, at *16. Op. ¶13.
He outlined some of those protections:
Judge Conrad also relied on some federal court decisions on the difference between party and non-party status when dealing with discovery matters. He said that:
federal courts have also stressed the “distinction between a party and nonparty” in applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Beinin v. Ctr. for the Study of Popular Culture, No. C 06-2298 JW (RS), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22518, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007). Although parties to litigation must accept the “travails [of discovery] as a natural concomitant of modern civil litigation,” “[n]on-parties have a different set of expectations.” Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-1095, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51274, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2017). Accordingly, “the fact of nonparty status may be considered by the court in weighing the burdens imposed in the circumstances.” Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Intermec Techs. Corp. v. Palm, Inc., No. C09-80098 MISC WHA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132759, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2009)(holding that protections apply “doubly when the respondent is a non-party”).
Op. ¶15 (emphasis added).
So how did Delta Products (the non-party recipient of the Defendant’s subpoena) fare against this backdrop of accommodation to non-parties? Delta came out pretty well, although not unscathed.
.jpg)
If you have ever drafted a Complaint, you have undoubtedly used the words that your previous numbered allegations were "incorporated by reference." It’s a way of not having to repeat yourself. That shortcut is specifically allowed by Rule 10(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which says that: "Statements in a pleading may be adopted by reference in a different part of the same pleading or in another pleading or in any motion in the action."
If you have a case where you have filed multiple briefs, you might "incorporate by reference" arguments you made in an earlier brief. You probably haven’t thought twice about that.
Well, Judge McGuire of the NC Business Court has thought about it, and he doesn’t like it. In American Air Filter Co. v. Price, 2017 NCBC 54, he ruled that the use of incorporation by reference of earlier briefs could be a violation of the Rules of the NC Business Court and that it could result in the Court refusing to consider the referenced argument.
How could that be, you are wondering, as there is no mention (or any prohibition) of this practice in the Court’s rules. The reason is that the inclusion of the pages of a previously filed brief might push you over the page limitations contained in the Business Court Rules for briefs. The Rules require the lawyer for a party filing a brief to limit her words to 7,500, and to "include a certificate by the attorney or party that the brief complies with this rule." BCR 7.8.
Judge McGuire said in the American Filter case that:
The General Rules of Practice and Procedure for the North Carolina Business Court (“BCR”) do not expressly permit parties to incorporate previously-filed briefs and documents outside of the brief at issue, at least not to supplement the substantive text of the brief at issue. In fact, BCR 7.8 provides strict word limits on briefs submitted to this Court. Even if incorporation of previous briefs were allowable, it appears a party incorporating a previously-filed brief would have to certify under BCR 7.8 that the brief and the incorporated brief did not exceed the word limits. Defendants have not done so in this case. As a result, the Court declines to consider Defendants’ arguments and authorities regarding choice of law issues contained in other filings with the Court.
Op. at n.2.
Continue Reading Incorporating By Reference In Your NC Business Court Brief? Don’t Do It!
Why would any lawyer think that his Joint Defense Agreement, entered into with a co-defendant, was protected from production by the attorney-client privilege? Well, the lawyer for one of the Defendants in AP Atlantic, Inc., v. Crescent University City Venture, LLC, 2017 NCBC 48 did, but his position was rejected by NC Business Court
You probably don’t think much, when you are noticing a deposition, about where it should take place. Ideally, you probably want it to happen in your own office.
The NC Rule of Civil Procedure on depositions, Rule 30, says that the notice of deposition "shall state the time and place for taking the deposition."