The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

FTC Warns Companies of Children's Privacy Violations

Don't say they didn't warn you. The Federal Trade Commission today sent letters to more than 90 businesses, informing them that they could potentially be in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act when changes to the law go into effect on July 1.

The FTC contacted both domestic and foreign companies making mobile apps that may be directed at children under age 13 about revisions to the privacy rule to "help ensure you are aware of those changes and your compliance responsibilities."

The two-page letter, signed by Maneesha Mithal, associate director of the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, is quick to note that the FTC has "not yet evaluated your apps or your company's practices." Instead, the letter serves more as a heads-up about new standards for personal information collected from children.

DOJ Defends Review of Associated Press Phone Records

Updated 11:20 p.m.

The U.S. Justice Department is defending its review of two months of phone records for a group of reporters and editors at the Associated Press, which called the government action "a massive and unprecedented intrusion" into newsgathering.

The news agency publicly disclosed the Justice Department's review of the phone records in a protest letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Gary Pruitt, president and chief executive officer of the AP, wrote.

"That the Department undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation, is particularly troubling," Pruitt said. Prosecutors collected records on 20 separate phone lines.

A statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia did not reveal the nature of the investigation. The Justice Department, however, has previously disclosed that the Maryland and District of Columbia U.S. attorneys are investigating, among other national security matters, the leak of information that provided the substance of an Associated Press story, published in May 2012, about an alleged terrorist plot that was thwarted.

Members of Congress on Wednesday will get a chance to question Holder about the rare move to subpoena newspaper reporters' phone records. Holder is scheduled to testify at the House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing.

The Morning Wrap

Chevron Allegations: Chevron Corp. on Friday accused Patton Boggs of fraud in a case that ended in a $19 billion environmental pollution judgment against the oil company in Ecuador, The Litigation Daily reports.

Ginsburg Roe: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday said she backs a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but the Roe v. Wade decision was too sweeping, The Associated Press reports.

Facebook Departure: Facebook Inc. general counsel Theodore Ullyot is leaving the company, The Recorder reports.

D.C. Attorney General Testifies in Evidence Dispute

In an unusual scene, District of Columbia Attorney General Irvin Nathan took the stand this morning in Washington federal court to testify about his office's handling of a longstanding wrongful arrest case. During occasionally contentious exchanges, Nathan fielded questions about his compliance with ethics rules as the city government's top lawyer.

Nathan was the final witness in a series of hearings about how city officials handled evidence in the case, which stemmed from mass arrests in 2002 at Pershing Park in downtown Washington. Nathan, who’s led the office since January 2011, was called to testify about a document filed by his office that included inaccurate information.

Nathan said he wasn't personally involved in preparing the document, but had no reason to believe attorneys in his office acted unethically or knew they were filing incorrect information at the time. Jonathan Turley, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs and professor at George Washington University Law School, asked Nathan why he didn't order an investigation once he learned his office had filed inaccurate information. Nathan said he believed he had met his ethical obligations and had "no regrets."

D.C. Chief Judges Celebrate Law Day on Twitter

Summing up courthouse policy and practices in 140 characters isn't easy, but the chief judges of Washington's local courts gave it a try this morning as part of this year's Law Day festivities.

Replying to tweets with the hashtag #AskTheCJs, Chief Judge Lee Satterfield of the D.C. Superior Court and Chief Judge Eric Washington of the D.C. Court of Appeals spent an hour collaborating on responses via Twitter. A photo posted by the court showed the two judges seated with tablets in front of a large television screen displaying the Twitter feed.

The judges fielded two questions about jury duty, tweeting that the court was making efforts to tailor the number of people summoned to meet courthouse needs. They engaged in creative abbreviating to stay within the 140-character limit.

D.C. Court of Appeals Chief Unopposed for Third Term

In 2012, the median time for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to resolve cases was 352 days. It was the first time in a decade that number dropped below the one-year line, and as Chief Judge Eric Washington prepares for what will likely be another tem as chief, he says he wants to do better.

Washington is unopposed in his bid for a third four-year term leading the city's highest local court. He is widely credited with making the court more efficient, but complaints about case backlogs have persisted. In his application materials, Washington wrote that "fair and timely resolution" of cases remains a top priority.

According to court statistics, the median number of days it took the court to resolve cases dropped from 10-year highs of 505 days in 2002 and 2007 to 352 days last year. The average time it took to resolve cases remained higher—a sign that certain cases are still taking much longer—although the court also reached a 10-year low of 427 days last year.

Deceased Judge's Family Sues Law Firm for Infringement

The family of the late Donald Duvall, former chief administrative law judge for the International Trade Commission, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against a Washington law firm yesterday accusing the firm of unlawfully taking credit for Duvall's work.

Duvall's widow, Kathryn Duvall, accused Washington-based Kenyon & Kenyon of conspiring to not give Duvall credit on the latest edition of a legal text he first wrote more than 20 years ago. In the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Kathryn Duvall called the firm's claims that the updated text no longer included her husband's writings "frivolous" and said the firm was trying to cut her family off from future royalties.

The firm and four individual attorneys are named as defendants. Partner Edward Colbert, who isn't a defendant, said that they were "taken aback" by the complaint. He said the publisher, and not Duvall or his family, owned the copyright to the text, and that the firm wrote the latest edition at the request of the publisher. The text had been "substantially altered" over the years, he added.

Report Highlights Need for Lawyers in D.C. Family Court

Updated at 3:51 p.m.

A task force of family law attorneys in Washington released a new report yesterday calling for expanded legal services for the growing population of unrepresented litigants in domestic relations and paternity and child support cases.

The D.C. Bar Family Law Task Force spent more than three years studying operations in the domestic relations and paternity and child support branches of the District of Columbia Superior Court. Task force co-chair Margaret McKinney, a founding partner of Washington's Delaney McKinney, said expanding access to legal representation stood out as a need.

The task force's recommendations included allowing lawyers to enter limited appearances in cases and expanding self-help resources available at the courthouse. McKinney said the response from court officials had been positive.

Sequestration Drives Scheduling Changes at D.C. Federal Court

To accommodate expected furloughs in federal law enforcement and defender services agencies, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will stop scheduling most criminal matters on alternating Fridays from April 26 through September 30, court officials said.

Unlike those agencies and some federal courts, however, the D.C. court isn't planning to furlough or fire staff before the end of the fiscal year in September as part of mandated federal budget cuts known as sequestration. Under sequestration, which took effect March 1, non-defense agencies faced five percent in budget cuts.

New arrests will still be processed on the alternating Fridays, U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth said, while ongoing criminal trials will be recessed. He said the decision was made in consultation with the local U.S. attorney, U.S. Marshal, and Federal Public Defender's offices. Civil cases won't be affected; Lamberth said the U.S. attorney's office indicated that they expect to have lawyers available.

Justice Dept. Asks Court to Dismiss Suit over Secret Court’s Opinions

Updated 5:58 p.m.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in Washington operates largely out of the public spotlight, issuing secret orders that are not generally available for public review. In a pending lawsuit, the U.S. Justice Department is fighting to block the disclosure of information about a case in which the court determined government surveillance activity violated the law.

Last August, the advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the department in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to get any written order or opinion from the surveillance court about that case. The lawsuit followed the release of information from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) about once instance when the secret court found the government's implementation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had "circumvented the spirit of the law."

The government said it declassified four statements and permitted Wyden to disclose the information "in an effort to strike the right balance between government transparency and the protection of critical intelligence activities." The Justice Department on Monday night filed court papers asking a judge to terminate the case, saying that no more information about the apparent transgression can be, or should be, revealed to the public.