Law, disrupted

John is joined by Michael A. (Mike) Brown, partner at Nelson Mullins and founder of the firm’s Baltimore office. Together, John and Mike discuss the process of successfully selecting a jury, including the importance of getting the jury to open up about their biases by disclosing some of your background or opinions and encouraging those jurors who voice biases against your client to speak freely. In addition, they discuss some of their favorite questions to ask to elicit biases from jurors who are reluctant to disclose them.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Kathleen M. Sullivan, senior counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and Founding Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation practice, and Derek L. Shaffer, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, DC office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation practice. Together, they discuss what appellate lawyers do: how they reverse bad trial outcomes, preserve good trial outcomes and help trial teams to make sure the trial record includes everything necessary for a successful appeal.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Last year, John B. Quinn was joined by Christopher Tayback, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles Office. John served as General Counsel of the Academy for over 30 years, and both Chris and John have represented the Academy in various legal matters for decades. In this podcast, they share details of some well-known legal issues the Academy has faced, exploring the uniquely important intellectual property issues and, more generally, the fundamental problems the Academy faces since motion pictures are increasingly viewed and premiered on television as opposed to in theaters.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Michael T. Lifrak, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, and Ellyde R. Thompson, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Together, John, Michael and Ellyde discuss the recent class action securities suit against Elon Musk, based on his August 7th, 2018 tweet about taking Tesla private. They discuss how Michael and Ellyde’s team obtained a complete jury verdict in Mr. Musk’s favor that denied the plaintiffs any recovery for their $12 billion in alleged market losses.If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlawPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by David A. Nelson, a partner in the Chicago office of Quinn Emanuel & co-chair of the firm’s National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. David is widely recognized as one of the most successful patent trial lawyers in the United States. They discuss how trying patent cases is different than trying other commercial cases. They also discuss how to win patent cases at trial including the importance of developing common sense explanations for technical arguments, developing a consistent narrative from the beginning, and using fact witnesses to bring life to your technical arguments.If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlawPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Dr. Ron A. Dolin, Lecturer at Harvard Law School, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Law’s Center on the Legal Profession and co-author of the textbook, Legal Informatics.  Together they discuss how recent advances in technology will impact the law and the practice of law.If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlawPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Michael Packard, federal prosecutor and civil litigator at the Boston office of Quinn Emanuel, and Bill Weinreb, an expert in white-collar criminal defense and complex litigation.Together, John, Bill and Michael discuss the recent acquittal Bill and Michael obtained for Jie “Jack” Zhao, the CEO of iTalk Global Communications Inc. in a high-profile “Varsity Blues” prosecution. Prosecutors claimed Zhao paid $1.5 million in bribes to obtain admission for his two sons to attend Harvard. Zhao was one of only four, out of roughly 60 defendants, who did not plead guilty and one of only two who were acquitted at trial. They explain the honest services fraud statute at issue, the preparation for trial, and the specific tactics and evidence Bill and Michael used to win the acquittal.If you enjoy this episode, please leave a rating, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fmKeep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Thomas Krueger, the Former Director of Strategic Trade and Nonproliferation for the National Security Council and current Senior Policy Advisor at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.Together, they discuss the latest regulatory controls on hi-tech exports to both Russia and China, explaining the legal basis for these restrictions, the specific technologies involved and the efforts made to get European and Asian allies to join in these restrictions.  If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlawPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by one of the most successful trial lawyers in the US, Jon Loevy, co-founder of Loevy & Loevy.Together, they discuss the $228 million jury verdict Jon won in the first trial brought for violations of Illinois’ unique Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). They explain the BIPA statute, focusing on the landmark suit Jon brought against BNSF Railway Co., including the history of the litigation, the trial itself, the course of settlement negotiations, and the implications of the case for the future of privacy litigation.If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.To find out more about the podcast and sign up to our newsletter, visit: www.law-disrupted.fmKeep up to date with John on Twitter: @jbqlawPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Paul Schwartz, Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law and Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, Viola Trebicka, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and the Co-Chair of the firm's Data Privacy and Security Practice, and Stephen Broome, partner in the firm’s Los Angeles and New York offices and the Co-Chair of the firm's Data Privacy and Security Practice. Together they discuss the explosion of data privacy claims on court dockets across the United States. The conversation begins with John asking what developments the panel is seeing right now with data privacy claims. Stephen highlights how more cases are being filed daily, particularly under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), as well federal and state wiretapping laws and new novel theories of recovery that were not previously plead in privacy cases. Viola then explains the two categories of claims plaintiffs have been filing recently.  The first category are common law invasion of privacy claims that are now being applied to modern data privacy issues. The second category consists of claims based on repurposing statutes that did not contemplate modern data gathering over the internet. One example of these statutes is the Federal Wire Tap Act of 1968 which was intended to prohibit people from physically connecting to a landline telephone without permission. Today, on the internet, when someone goes to the website for a company, they know they are communicating with that company, but that company will often send the person’s data off to a third party which tracks ads or pages the person visits clicks on.  Plaintiffs are now alleging that those third parties are eavesdroppers violating the Wire Tap Act. Another statute plaintiffs increasingly use is the Video Privacy Protection Act which was passed in the late 1980s to prevent reporters from learning what videos a person rented at a video store. Now, many websites have embedded videos.  Plaintiffs are now alleging that websites that share information about what embedded videos a person has watched, they have violated the VPPA.  John moves the conversation to why the US does not have comprehensive national legislation addressing data privacy. Paul explains that while Europe as well as states such as California, Nevada, and Virginia have passed statutes governing data privacy, the proposed federal statute, the American Data Privacy Protection Act (ADPPA) has not yet been brought to a vote in Congress. The discussion then turns to how plaintiffs build large damage claims. Viola explains that plaintiffs focus on unjust enrichment and restitution theories.  Unjust enrichment theories are usually asserted when the case centers on advertising data. The panel then discusses how these theories when applied to classes that include tens of millions of plaintiffs can easily lead to total damages figures in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The discussion then turns to what companies can do to avoid these huge awards.  Paul emphasizes that companies need to get ahead of these issues before they get sued by seeking privacy counseling, hiring Chief Privacy Officers, and mapping where their customers’ data is and what is happening to it. Finally, the group discusses two notable issues that have come up in recent FTC enforcement actions.  The first is the possibility of imposing personal liability on senior executives for data privacy violations.  The second is that when it settles a case, the FTC will now spell out in extreme detail what it expects of companies who have had a cybersPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi