Employment Law – Legal Representation – Introducing Lisa Chapman – Effective and Experienced – My Colleague at Royse Law

Semi-regularly I am asked if I can recommend an employment lawyer. And I can. For those of you who are or who might in the future be interested, below I have pasted the information about my colleague Lisa Chapman from the Royse Law Firm website. As you can see, Lisa is an extremely experienced employment lawyer in both non-litigation employment counseling and employment litigation. If you have an employment related legal need, you can contact Lisa directly, or if you want to go through me you can contact me at dtate@rroyselaw.com . And below the information about Lisa, I have also listed some of the major practice areas at the Royse firm.
Best to you. David Tate, Esq.
Lisa Chapman

Lisa Chapman

Attorney
Office (650) 813-9700 ext 221
Fax (650) 813-9777
lchapman@rroyselaw.com
LinkedIn | Videos | Articles

Lisa is an experienced employment attorney and litigator. In her employment law practice she helps startup and mid-size companies navigate and comply with Federal and state employment laws and regulations. This includes laws related to wage and hour requirements, sexual harassment and retaliation, worker classification (independent contractor vs. employee status) and overtime laws, among others. She acts as a sounding board and advise clients as they face critical decisions about their employment practices, such as mass (or “one-off”) termination of employees, compliance with disability laws and regulations, expansion of the workforce, classifying employees as “exempt” from overtime, transitioning “exempt” employees to non-exempt status, creating and enforcing social media policies, classifying workers as employees or independent contractors, and other employment and labor issues. She also provides training in sensitive and problematic areas such as sexual harassment, discrimination, and other equally important employment law related issues critical for ensuring that companies remain compliant with employment (and other) laws, and avoid government investigations and litigation.

In addition, Lisa provides counsel to senior executives in job transitions, helping them navigate issues relating to stock options, severance packages and providing advice about their obligations under intellectual property and trade secret laws whether they return to the workforce or form a new company of their own. Royse Law Firm has both ERISA and tax counsel who assist her in this type of retention.

In addition to her counseling services, Lisa litigates cases before Federal and state courts in California and other states and represent clients in matters before the California Labor Commissioner, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, the California Department of Labor, taxing agencies and other agencies and commissions. Her litigation practice involves both employment and non-employment related matters. Lisa has litigated employment related cases for companies and individuals involving, among other issues, ADA compliance, sexual harassment, improper employee classification, wage and hour claims (including class action claims).

Lisa’s general (non-employment) civil litigation experience has involved a wide range of issues focused primarily on commercial disputes. This has included, among others, partnership disputes, collection matters, real estate claims, breach of contract and fraud claims.

Finally, Lisa provides legal counseling relating to compliance with trade secret laws, with an emphasis on helping her clients resolve their differences prior to resorting to litigation.

Education:
• J.D., University of San Francisco
• B.A., Political Science, University of California – Santa Barbara

Admitted To Practice:
• California
• United States District Court for the Northern, Central and Southern
Districts of California

Affiliations:
• Palo Alto Area Bar Association
• Santa Clara County Bar Association

For more information on Lisa Chapman, please email to: lchapman@rroyselaw.com

 

David Tate, Esq. (and CPA, California inactive). Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park Office, California (with offices in both northern and southern California).

Royse Law Firm – Practice Area Overview – San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin

  • Corporate and Securities, Financing and Formation
  • Corporate Governance, D&O, Boards and Committees, Audit Committees, Etc.
  • Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  • International
  • Immigration
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation (I broke out the litigation because this is my primary area of practice)
  •             Business
  •             Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  •             Trade Secrets, NDA, Financial & Accounting Issues, Fraud, Lost Income, Royalties, Etc.
  •             Privacy, Internet, Hacking, Speech, Etc.
  •             Labor and Employment
  •             Mergers & Acquisitions
  •             Real Estate
  •             Owner, Founder, Investor, Board & Committee, Shareholder, D&O, Lender/Debtor, Etc.
  •             Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
  •             Investigations
  •             Trust, Estate, Conservatorship, Elder Abuse, Etc., and Contentious Administrations
  • Real Estate
  • Tax (US and International) and Tax Litigation
  • Technology Companies and Transactions Including AgTech, HealthTech, etc.
  • Wealth and Estate Planning, Trust and Estate Administration, and Disputes and Litigation

May 15, 2017, Preliminary Injunction Order Against Uber – A Lot Of People Should Take Personal Note – Officers, Directors, Employees, Agents, Suppliers And Consultants

You may have heard, this week on May 15, 2017, Judge William Alsup in the Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. case (U.S. District Court, No. District of California) issued his Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff’s Motion For Provisional Relief, i.e., for a preliminary injunction. The Order is 26 pages. Plaintiff has brought multiple claims in the case including for trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement and unfair competition, but the Order is for preliminary injunction only on the trade secret misappropriation claim. The trade secret claim is brought under both the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.

I’m not going to go through the evidence in this post – as indicated above, the Order is 26 pages in length. The Order states that it is narrowly-tailored to balance the interests of the parties and the public. In summary, the decision whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction is based on the evidence now available, the legal claims alleged, the now perceived likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial on the relevant claim or claims, and the interests of the parties and the public. Preliminary injunction motions are significantly based on the strength of the evidence now available and presented and the Judge’s view of that evidence. In this instance, in my view based on the Court’s Order, there was strong evidence that trade secret information possibly was misappropriated, but either no evidence or not particularly strong evidence that Uber had involvement in that possible misappropriation or that Uber had access to or used that information.

Here’s where the Court’s Order gets interesting – in the scope of relief granted. I have pasted below the wording from the Scope of Relief Granted part of the Order. In short aside from the provisions pertaining to Mr. Levandowski, and certain expedited discovery granted, the Order essentially requires Uber to conduct an extensive investigation and to file and disclose a detailed report and account by June 23, 2017, which is a very, very short time to conduct the investigation. In my view it is questionable whether the extent of the investigation can be completed and written-up to be filed in that short of time. And, as you will note, the investigation also includes, or example, all communications with any officer, director, employee, agent, supplier, or consultant of defendants on the relevant topics. Thus, Uber is required to conduct discovery upon itself in the form of the report and account to be filed, and depending on the documents and information obtained the report and account could well bring individual officers, directors, employees, agents, suppliers and consultants personally into focus in the case – if they haven’t done so already, all of those people should be expansively reviewing their possible involvement, if any, in the issues that are involved in the case and consulting with legal counsel about their possible exposure to legal action and personal liability, and how they should proceed.

For your further reading, below is the Scope of Relief Granted provision from the Order.

Best to you. David Tate, Esq.

  1. SCOPE OF RELIEF GRANTED.

Having considered the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

  1. The term “downloaded materials,” as used in this provisional order, means any and all materials that Anthony Levandowski downloaded from Waymo and kept upon leaving Waymo’s employment, regardless of how long he kept them for and whether or not any such materials qualify as trade secrets or proprietary or confidential information.
  2. Defendants must immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court) by MAY 31 AT NOON. Copies essential for counsel of record and their litigation experts to use in defending this civil action are exempted from the foregoing requirement.9
  3. With respect to Anthony Levandowski, defendants shall immediately (a) remove him from any role or responsibility pertaining to LiDAR; (b) take all steps in their power to prevent him from having any communication on the subject of LiDAR with any officer, director, employee, agent, supplier, consultant, or customer of defendants; and (c) prohibit him from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials in any way. Defendants shall instruct all their officers, directors, employees, agents, suppliers, consultants, and customers in writing of this prohibition, and further instruct them in writing to immediately report any suspected breaches thereof to the special master (or to the Court).
  4. With respect to all other persons, including those with Stroz Friedberg, defendants shall conduct a thorough investigation and provide a detailed accounting under oath setting forth every person who has seen or heard any part of any downloaded materials, what they saw or heard, when they saw or heard it, and for what purpose. In their investigation, defendants must do more than query servers with term searches. For example, they must interview personnel with particular focus on anyone who has communicated with Anthony Levandowski on the subject of LiDAR. Defendants’ accounting shall not be limited to Uber but shall include all persons who fit the foregoing description, including Levandowski and his separate counsel. The accounting may exclude, for only the time period after the commencement of this civil action, the attorneys of record and their staff and experts employed for this litigation. The accounting shall not be limited to downloaded materials that happened to make their way into some due diligence report but shall cover any and all downloaded materials. The accounting shall also identify the complete chains of custodians for every copy of any downloaded materials or due diligence report referencing downloaded materials. Defendants must also use the full extent of their authority and influence to obtain cooperation with the foregoing procedure from all involved. For example, if a potential custodian refuses to cooperate, then defendants’ accounting shall set forth the particulars, including all efforts made to obtain cooperation. The accounting must be filed and served by JUNE 23 AT NOON. The accounting may be filed under seal only to the extent that it quotes or appends downloaded materials.
  5. Also by JUNE 23 AT NOON, defendants shall provide Waymo’s counsel and the Court with a complete and chronologically organized log of all oral and written communications — including, without limitation, conferences, meetings, phone calls, one-on-one conversations, texts, emails, letters, memos, and voicemails — wherein Anthony Levandowski mentioned LiDAR to any officer, director, employee, agent, supplier, or consultant of defendants. The log shall identify for each such communication the time, place (if applicable), mode, all persons involved, and subjects discussed, as well as any and all notes or records referencing the communication.
  6. Waymo is hereby granted further expedited discovery in aid of possible further provisional relief. Subject to the protective order, and upon reasonable notice, Waymo’s counsel and one expert may inspect any and all aspects of defendants’ ongoing work involving LiDAR — including, without limitation, schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails — whether or not said work resulted in any prototype or device. With respect to its trade secret misappropriation claims only, Waymo may take seven further depositions on seven calendar days notice, may propound 28 reasonably narrow document requests for which the response time is reduced to 14 calendar days, and may propound 28 reasonably narrow interrogatories for which the response time is also reduced to 14 calendar days. If Waymo moves for further provisional relief before trial, then all its declarants in support of such motion must sit for depositions on an expedited basis. Otherwise, defendants may take only normal, unexpedited discovery. After Waymo has exhausted its expedited discovery, it may continue with normal discovery.
  7. Defendants shall keep complete and accurate records of their compliance with all of the foregoing requirements, including directives given to Anthony Levandowski and others. The special master shall monitor and verify said compliance. To that end, the special master shall promptly develop proposed monitoring and verification protocols with the parties’ input and then submit the proposed protocols to the Court for approval. The protocols shall provide for the special master to visit defendants’ facilities and monitor communications as necessary to ensure that Anthony Levandowski remains sealed off from LiDAR activities.

The foregoing provisional relief shall become effective upon the posting by Waymo of a bond or other security in the amount of FIVE MILLION DOLLARS.

* * * * *

Royse Law Firm/David Tate – Legal Updates in Litigation, Liability, Governance & Risk Management (March 10)

Below I have provided a link to the Royse Law Firm Legal Updates in Litigation, Liability, Governance & Risk Management, of which I am the Editor. The Update is litigation and dispute targeted, primarily covering business, IP, employer and employee, D&O, founder/owner/shareholder/investor, M&A, and trust and estate litigation and disputes, and also including governance, administrations, and risk management. The Updates include the Firm’s attorney written articles and updates, videos and presentations, and also from time to time select resources by other outside third parties with comments added.

My practice continues in civil and trust and estate litigation and disputes and administrations, and other related areas. The Royse Law Firm offers very experienced, appropriately priced corporate, IP, employment, D&O, M&A, founder/owner/shareholder/investor, estate planning and litigation legal services and representation for established and new businesses, and people, in Northern and Southern California. Please contact me if you or other people who you know have legal needs. You can contact me at (650) 813-9700, extension 233. The Firm’s website is http://rroyselaw.com/

Click on the following link to Legal Updates in Litigation: Royse Legal Updates in Litigation, Liability, Governance & Risk Management (March 10, 2017)