News & Publications

McCandlish Holton has announced an early closure of the firm on Friday June 18 in order to allow firm employees to observe the Juneteenth holiday following the designation of Juneteenth as a federal holiday. President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law after the passage of a bill by both the US Senate and the House of Representatives making it the 12th federal holiday. Juneteenth has also been known as Jubilee Day, Black Independence Day, and Emancipation Day. 

D. Cameron Beck, Jr. is recognized again by Chambers and Partners in their USA Guide 2021 for General Commercial Litigation in Virginia. The Chambers review states: 

The 2021 edition of Virginia/West Virginia Super Lawyers® recognizes 5 attorneys in the category of ‘‘Super Lawyers’’ and 5 attorneys in the category of ‘‘Rising Stars’’ in 6 practice areas:

• Civil Litigation- Defense
• Business Litigation
• Insurance Coverage
• Employment & Labor
• Transportation/Maritime
• Workers’ Compensation

Among those recognized by Super Lawyers® are the trial attorneys who prevailed in defending the Commonwealth of Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining in a constitutional takings case heard in Wise County, Virginia in July 2020: Cam Beck and Mike Gladstone.

Each year, lawyers are invited to nominate the top attorneys they have personally observed in action. Out of the 5 percent who are nominated, only about 2.5 percent are selected as Rising Stars.  See McCandlish Holton's full Super Lawyers® profile here. 

A WTVR and CBS 6 News Richmond article features attorney Joe Moore and his family in a recent "Heroes Among Us" column titled:

By: Michael H. Gladstone, Esq. Mike's Bio

Senators Marsden and Dunnavant introduced Senate Bill No. 1392 this session, a bill providing a “Consumer Data Protection Act” for Virginia. Code of Virginia §§ 59.1-579 – 580. The Act authorizes consumers to determine, by inquiry to a controller, whether or not their personal data is being processed by a data controller or processer and, if it is, on a qualified basis (only “commercially reasonable efforts” required) to correct inaccuracies, obtain a copy of the data, and opt out of future processing, and to delete the data. The bill has a delayed effective date of January 1, 2023.

Terms utilized in the Act and their lengthy definitions have the ring of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), however, in comparison, the Act’s effect is much more modest.  

Which Businesses Qualify?

The Act limits its application to data controllers and processers conducting business in the Commonwealth or businesses which produce products or services targeted to Virginia residents and which control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers, or control or process data of at least 25,000 consumers and derive over 50% of their gross revenue from the sale of personal data. The Act’s coverage is not, thus, strictly limited to businesses which

A Series By: Michael H. Gladstone, Esq. Mike's Bio

In Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24570 the USDC for the Northern District of California addressed an objection by Defendant to discovery propounded by Plaintiff seeking emails possessed by one of defendant’s European employees.  The objection argued the employee’s emails may not be produced without violating privacy requirements contained in the GDPR, which became effective in May, 2018.  The Court approached the dispute methodically and provided what this author predicted may be a model for future analysis of discovery objections under the GDPR by U.S. Courts of such disputes. 

[Are You Within the Reach of the GDPR?]

The Court first announced the general rule that “…a foreign country’s statute precluding disclosure of evidence does “not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even though the act of production may violate that statute.”  Societe Nationale Industreille Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist., 482 U.S. 522, 544 n. 29, 107 S. Ct. 2542, 96 L Ed. 2d 461 (1987).  The Court then identified the considerations pertinent to the question whether or not a foreign statute excuses non-compliance with a U.S. discovery order:  1. The importance of the documents or other information requested to the litigation, 2. The degree of specificity of the request, 3. Whether the information originated in the United States, 4. The availability of alternative means of securing the information, and 5. The extent to which noncompliance would undermine important interests of the United States.  Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F. 2d 1468, 1475 (9^th Cir. 1992). 

The Court addressed the factors individually. 

Consideration No. 1: The importance of the documents or other information requested to the litigation. The court concluded the documents were directly relevant to the infringement issue and the data subject’s knowledge of the patented technology at issue.  As such, this consideration weighed in favor of disclosure. 

Litigation Participants Subject to GDPR Must Justify their Use of Protected Data

Consideration No. 2: The degree of specificity of the request. The court found the

Matthew Haynes and Brennan Morrissett obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a mutual insurance company in a Virginia Circuit Court jury trial.  The plaintiff/insured filed a 1^st party suit against his homeowner’s insurer alleging breach of contract. 

Plaintiff sought to recover more than $250,000 in alleged personal property losses and additional living expenses he claimed resulted from a fire that completely destroyed his residence.  Plaintiff sought these amounts eighteen months after the fire, and in addition to

By: Esther King, Esq. 

By: Amanda Tapscott Belliveau, Esq. 

Matthew Haynes and Brennan Morrissett obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a global warehouse retailer following a two day jury trial in the United States District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.