Quon and the Supreme Court Tackling An E-Discovery Issue


Listen to Karl Schieneman, Director of Analytics and Review with JurInnov, talk about how electronic discovery differs when it occurs as part of a government investigation. Our panelist for today’s show is Edward R. Mcnicholas a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Sidley Austin LLP. Ed’s practice focuses on clients facing complex information technology, constitutional and privacy issues in civil and white-collar criminal matters. He has significant experience with a wide-range of cutting-edge Internet and information law matters involving privacy and data protection, online brand protection, eDiscovery, electronic surveillance, defamation, information security, cloud computing, trade secrets, social media, locational privacy, e-commerce, and national security. The 2007 Computerworld survey of “Best Privacy Advisers” recognized Mr. McNicholas as one of the “Top 25 Privacy Experts” in the country, and Mr. McNicholas and Sidley’s Privacy and Data Security practice were selected for Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business for 2008 and 2009 as well as Chambers Global for 2010.

Ed and I will talk about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Quon and how it sheds light on the Supreme Court’s take on electronic discovery. Widely viewed as a punt, the Supreme Court did not talk much about electronic discovery and instead based its decision on whether the 4th Amendment was violated. Ed and I will talk narrowly about the Quon case and more broadly on what the case says about the U.S. Supreme court’s appetite and expertise in tackling electronic discovery issues.

Recorded 06/22/2010