On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Current Developments in Federal Civil Practice 2019

Released on: Feb. 15, 2019
Running Time: 06:19:03

Are you up-to-date on the important developments in federal civil practice and the implications of these developments for your cases? At this program, a distinguished faculty of trial lawyers and judges will provide a dynamic overview of significant recent developments in the law and offer their insights.  The program will focus on the impact of these developments on best practices throughout the life of a federal litigation. This program will be helpful for any attorney who litigates in federal court.  Both new lawyers and experienced trial attorneys will appreciate the focus on recent developments and decisions, and the opportunity to hear the views of federal judges on these issues.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:19:03]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:05:21]
    Lauren E. Aguiar
  • Motion Practice Developments in Federal Civil Practice [01:03:25]
    Lauren E. Aguiar, Stephen Cha-Kim, Hon. James L. Cott, Jonathan L. Frank, Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak
  • Electronic Discovery Update: Cybersecurity and Privacy Issues [01:02:25]
    R Jason Straight, Lauren E. Aguiar, Hon. James L. Cott, Jonathan L. Frank, Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak
  • Evidence Developments in Federal Civil Practice [01:01:27]
    Jacob Hollinger, Lauren E. Aguiar, Hon. James L. Cott, Jonathan L. Frank, Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak
  • Ethics Developments in Federal Civil Practice [01:04:46]
    Jerome G. Snider, Lauren E. Aguiar, Hon. George B. Daniels, Jonathan L. Frank, Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti
  • Important Recent Cases Impacting Federal Civil Practice [01:01:13]
    Lauren E. Aguiar, Jonathan L. Frank, Hon. George B. Daniels, Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti
  • Current Trial Issues in Federal Civil Practice [01:00:23]
    Zoe Salzman, Lauren E. Aguiar, Jonathan L. Frank, Hon. George B. Daniels, Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Federal Civil Practice 2019: Developments in Motion Practice (November 14, 2018)
    Stephen Cha-Kim
  • Electronic Discovery Update: Cybersecurity and Privacy Issues (December 7, 2017)
    R. Jason Straight
  • Face-Off: Harmonising Data Protection Across the Atlantic Remains Critical, Intercontinental Finance & Law
    R. Jason Straight
  • Evidence Update (November 2018)
    Jacob Hollinger
  • 2018 PLI Ethics Presentation Outline
    Jerome G. Snider
  • New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 328, Fairness and Candor; Secret Recording of Conversation (March 18, 1974)
  • State Bar of Arizona, Ethics Opinions, 95-03: Tape Recording; Opposing Counsel (1995)
  • New York City Bar Association, Committee Report, Formal Opinion 2003-02: Undisclosed Taping of Conversations for Lawyers (February 2, 2003)
  • Missouri Supreme Court Advisory Committee, Formal Opinion 123, Secret Electronic Recording of a Conversation with a Nonclient Is Not a Violation, Absent Other Circumstances (March 8, 2006)
  • Virginia State Bar, Committee Opinion, Legal Ethics Opinion 1802, Advising Clients on the Use of Lawful Undisclosed Recording (September 29, 2010)
  • New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1132, Paying Nonlawyers for a Recommendation or Referral (August 8, 2017)
  • New York City Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2018-4: Duties When an Attorney Is Asked to Assist in a Suspicious Transaction
  • New York City Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2018-5: Litigation Funders’ Contingent Interest in Legal Fees
  • New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1151, Restrictive Covenants on Lawyers (May 1, 2018)
  • Memorandum, NYSBA Committee on Standards of Attorney Conduct to NYSBA Executive Committee, COSAC Proposals Regarding Conflict of Interest Provisions, Final Report Responding to Public Comments (September 30, 2018)
  • The State Bar of California, California Rules of Professional Conduct (Effective November 1, 2018)
  • U.S. District Court Criminal Docket, In re: United States v. Shkreli, 1:15cr637 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2015)
  • U.S. District Court Criminal Docket, In re: United States v. Ravelo, 2:15cr576 (D.N.J. 2015)
  • Decision & Order, In Re: Gottwald v. Sebert, No. 653118/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)
  • Judgment Approved, In re: Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation LTD, Case No. A2/2017/1514 (Queen’s Bench Division 2018)
  • Office of the Attorney General, Press Release, A.G. Underwood Announces Agreement with Online Legal Directory to Reform Its Attorney Ratings and Improve Disclosures for Consumers (September 24, 2018)
  • Order, In re: Blackrock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 14-CV-09367 (JMF)(SN) (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
  • Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, Case No. 4:13-cv-00010-RRE-AR (Fed. Cir. 2018)
  • Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, In re: Heartland Consumer Products LLC v. Dineequity, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01035-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind. 2018)
  • Bench Decision Regarding Application for Permission to Retain Winston & Strawn LLP and Objections Thereto, In re: Relativity Media, LLC, Chapter 11, Case No. 18-11358 (MEW) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018)
  • Opinion of the Court, In re: Donziger, 2018 NY Slip Op. 05128, 163 AD3d 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
  • Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, In re: McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255 (U.S. 2018)
  • Memorandum Decision and Order, In re: Rafferty v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00210-DCN (D. Idaho 2018)
  • Verified Petition to Stay Arbitration Pursuant to CPLR Article 75, In re: Selendy v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Index No. 652323/18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)
  • Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Application to Stay Arbitration, In re: Selendy v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Index No. 652323/18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)
  • Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., S232946 Ct. App. 2/4 B256314 (Cal. 2018)
  • Opinion, In re: Siu Ching Ha v. Baumgart Café of Livingston, Civil Action No. 15-5530 (ES) (MAH) (D.N.J. 2018)
  • Civil Minutes, In re: Skybell Technologies, Inc. v. Ring, Inc., Case No. SACV 18-00014-JVS (JDEx) (C.D. Cal. 2018)
  • U.S. District Court Criminal Docket, In re: United States v. Van Der Zwaan, 1:18cr31 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2018)
  • Information, In re: United States v. Van Der Zwaan, Case No. 1:18-cr-00031 (D.D.C. 2018)
  • Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County, In re: Waste Administrative Services, Inc. v. The Krystal Company, No. 2-259-15 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018)
  • Important Case Law Developments in Civil Practice (November 19, 2018)
    Jonathan L. Frank, Lauren E. Aguiar
  • Current Trial Issues in Federal Civil Practice (Substantive Outline)
    Zoe Salzman
  • The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics: Formal Opinion 2012-2: Jury Research and Social Media
    Zoe Salzman
  • Leslie Ellis and Samantha L. Schwartz, The Ethics of Social Media and Jurors: The Rising Importance of Social Media in the Courtroom (March 2017)
    Zoe Salzman
  • Verizon Directories Corp. v. Yellow Book USA, Inc., 331 F.Supp.2d 136 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2004)
    Zoe Salzman
  • United States v. the City of New York, No. 07-cv-2067 (NGG)(RLM) (E.D.N.Y. July 19, 2010)
    Zoe Salzman

Presentation Material

  • Developments in Motion Practice
    Lauren E. Aguiar, Stephen Cha-Kim, Hon. James L. Cott, Jonathan L. Frank, Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak
  • Electronic Discovery Update
    R Jason Straight
  • In re: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case: 1:15-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. 2018)
    R Jason Straight
  • In re: EPAC Technologies, Inc. v. Harpercollins Christian Publishing, Inc., Case no. 3:12-cv-00463
    R Jason Straight
  • In re: Frank Schmaiz v. Village of North Riverside, No. 13 C 8012 (N.D. Ill. 2018)
    R Jason Straight
  • In re: Industrial Quick Search, Inc. v. Miller, Rosado & Algois, LLP, 13 Civ. 5589 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
    R Jason Straight
  • In re: Rachel Nunes v. Tiffanie Rushton, Case no: 2:14-cv-00627-JNP-DBP (D. Utah 2018)
    R Jason Straight
  • Evidence Update
    Lauren E. Aguiar, Hon. James L. Cott, Jonathan L. Frank, Jacob Hollinger, Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak
  • Ethics Developments in Federal Civil Practice
    Lauren E. Aguiar, Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti, Hon. George B. Daniels, Jonathan L. Frank, Jerome G. Snider
  • Case Law Developments
    Lauren E. Aguiar, Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti, Hon. George B. Daniels, Jonathan L. Frank
  • Current Trial Issues in Federal Civil Practice
    Lauren E. Aguiar, Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti, Hon. George B. Daniels, Jonathan L. Frank, Zoe Salzman
Chairperson(s)
Lauren E. Aguiar ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Speaker(s)
Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti ~ United States District Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Stephen Cha-Kim ~ Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York
Hon. James L. Cott ~ United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Hon. George B. Daniels ~ United States District Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Jonathan L. Frank ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Jacob Hollinger ~ McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak ~ United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Zoe Salzman ~ Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP
Jerome G. Snider ~ Professional Responsibility Counsel, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
R Jason Straight ~ Senior Vice President, Chief Privacy Officer – Cyber Risk Solutions, UnitedLex Corp.
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Current Developments in Federal Civil Practice 2019 Lauren E. Aguiar, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
 
Current Developments in Federal Civil Practice 2018 Jonathan L. Frank, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.