News & Publications

Originally published by International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC), Defense Counsel Journal Volume 86, No. 4

IN JANUARY 2012, the European Commission set out plans for data protection reform across the European Union. One of the key components of the reforms was the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).¹

The GDPR is a comprehensive set of rules designed to give European Union citizens more control over their personal data. The GDPR applies, generally, to any organization operating within the European Union, as well as organizations outside of the European Union which offer goods or services to customers or businesses in the European Union among others. Almost every major corporation in the world is affected by this legislation. This legislation came into force across the European Union in May 2018.

There has been considerable uncertainty how GDPR will be addressed in litigation commenced in the United States. However, as a year has passed, motions relating to GDPR are beginning to be adjudicated, and trends are starting to occur. This article provides a detailed summary of courts’ treatment of GDPR-related arguments and summarizes the potential impact of GDPR on United States litigation.

I. Impact of GDPR currently

As of July 19, 2019, eleven federal cases reference “GDPR” or the “General Data Protection Regulation.” No state court cases appear. Of the cases returned, four are from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,² and two are from California,³ one  from the Central District of California and the Northern District of California. The remaining five cases originate from District Courts in Washington, Maryland, Alabama, Utah, and Florida.⁴

These eleven cases generally involve discovery disputes, often in intellectual property matters. In these scenarios, the responding party has raised GDPR as a bar or impediment to

By: Samantha S. Otero, Business Law Practice Group

McCandlish Holton is recognized for 11 practice areas in the 2020 edition of US News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms.” The firm received metropolitan Richmond Tier 1 ratings in Immigration, Commercial Litigation, Immigration Law, and Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants. Eight additional practice areas earned Richmond Metro ratings. See the full ratings here:  U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” 2020.

Tier 1 - Richmond Metropolitan Area

• Commercial Litigation
• Immigration Law
• Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

ALFA International has recognized McCandlish Holton as its 2019 "Law Firm of the Year."

The US Department of Homeland Security will announce an increase in the Premium Processing fee for many immigration petitions from $1410 to $1440.  Premium Processing allows certain immigration filings (such as I-129 filings for H1B or other work visas; and I-140 petitions for Immigrant Workers) to be processed in 15 days instead of many months.  The proposed rule increasing the fee will be published in the federal register on October 31, and will take effect 30 days from then.  The fee increase will apply to any petitions postmarked on or after November 29, 2019. Read the Final Rule.

Virginia code amendments since 2004 limit Plaintiff “venue-shopping” as they align venue options with the common sense view that a lawsuit should be filed where the underlying action occurred.

By: Jim Snyder

By: Jim Snyder

TBIs have become the modern day whiplash. Increasingly, we see claimed head injuries and alleged traumatic brain injuries as often as classic soft tissue injuries. It used to be, when we received a rear-end case to defend, we knew the claim would involve upper back and neck sprains/strains. Now, when a case lands in our office, chances are good the plaintiff is going to make some claim of brain dysfunction as a result of the accident. Whether it is a severe collision with obvious head trauma or a parking lot bump where the plaintiff barely nods, we know TBI will likely be an issue somewhere down the road.

During a two month stretch this past summer, our team aggressively attacked and resolved four such cases (see our infographic above). Each case was grossly over-inflated and the defense needed to be aggressive. Used collectively, these three strategies dramatically

By: Brennan C. Morrissett

Arbitration awards are often described as ironclad, with arbitrators’ findings generally not susceptible to challenge.  Historically, and as a matter of public policy, arbitral power is intentionally limited to only those matters the parties have specifically contracted to subject to arbitration.  This means an arbitrator has no power to rule on issues except for those expressly assigned to them by contract by the parties.  Challenges to arbitrators’ failure to observe this fundamental limitation led to several recent United States Supreme Court “exceeded authority” cases – one of four limited bases on which an arbitrator’s finding can be challenged.  These rulings give some much needed

Workers' Compensation DEFENSE DIGEST

Virginia has long held that the statute of limitations for filing an initial claim for benefits is two years from the date of accident. Va. Code §65.2-601. However, prior to July 1, 2019, §65.2-602 provided that the two year statute of limitations to file a claim was tolled when (1) an employer had notice of an accident resulting in a compensable injury and paid wages or compensation to the claimant, with or without an award, during incapacity from work or that the employer failed to file a First Report of Injury and (2) that the claimant was prejudiced by the payment of wages or compensation during incapacity from work or by the employer’s failure to file the First Report of Injury.  If a claimant proved both of these conditions, the statute of limitations was tolled for the duration of the payments or wages during the claimant’s incapacity from work or until the First Report of Injury was filed.

Effective July 1, 2019, the statute has been rewritten and there are some significant changes.

The new statute only applies to injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2019. It is not retroactive to injuries occurring before such date.

1. Most importantly, the statute of limitations is tolled if the employer paid TTD, TPD or wages during incapacity from work or furnished medical treatment more than six months after the