A dispute in California federal court over whether Google must turn over documents stored overseas in response to a search warrant may have major implications for white collar practitioners and their clients. Last week Google asked a California federal judge to review an order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler that required the company to produce content stored outside the United States in response to a warrant. U.S. District Judge William Alsup will hear Google’s motion for de novo review of the order on June 22. In the order at issue, Judge Beeler denied Google’s motion to quash a warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2703. The SCA, in part, requires the disclosure of customer communications or records by internet service providers pursuant to a warrant. The warrant sought documents related to specific Google email accounts, including subscriber information, evidence of specified crimes, and information about the account holders’ true identities, locations, and assets. Google produced information it stored domestically, but argued that the warrant could not reach information stored abroad. Google argued that its legal team in the United States were the only personnel authorized to access and produce the communications, which could be accessed from within the United States. Matter of Search of Content that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, No. 16-MC-80263-LB, 2017 WL 1487625, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017). Continue Reading Blurring The Line Between Foreign and Domestic: The Expansion of Search Warrant Powers Overseas
Janice Reicher handles a variety of government investigations and litigation in areas including antitrust, fraud, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Her current caseload includes defending international clients in antitrust investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Recent corporate guilty pleas can be expected to have serious implications for the individual executives and employees alleged to have been involved in the conduct under scrutiny. But there are other factors at play in such cases that can make even more of a difference to the eventual outcomes for individuals than whether their corporate employer pleads guilty or pursues an alternative resolution. Key among these is the extent to which a cooperative relationship can be established between company counsel and individual counsel despite accusations of individual wrongdoing.
Read more in our article posted on Law360: Individual Defense in the Shadow of Corporate Guilty Pleas.
Every day corporate entities and individuals in some parts of the world provide payments to foreign officials in exchange for business favors. While it may be a common feature of business in these places, this kind of activity is illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which criminalizes various acts of bribery and related accounting fraud. The consequences for failing to comply with the FCPA are severe, and ensuring compliance can be especially difficult for start-up or relatively young companies growing rapidly and expanding into foreign markets before they can institute robust compliance systems. Continue Reading Minding the Compliance Gap in an Evolving FCPA Landscape