After Capital One Ruling, How Will Companies Protect Forensic Reports?

A loss for Capital One may have wider consequences for defendants’ ability to shield breach investigation reports from discovery. This article addressed the implications of a decision by a magistrate judge in Virginia federal court rejecting the bank’s claim that its attorney-directed post breach incident report is protected work product, including the decision’s potential chilling effects on companies’ discussions after a breach, and steps companies might take to protect forensic reports, with insight from Holland & Knight and Faegre Drinker Biddle lawyers. It also included advice from Arnold & Porter on an alternative approach to handling forensic facts. Since the article was published, a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia agreed to reconsider the decision, then affirmed the finding after a de novo review.

To read the full article

Continue reading your article with a CSLR subscription.