<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.6.3" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>MGLAW</title>
	<link>http://www.mglaw.net</link>
	<description>MGLAW is all about business. Our boutique practice focuses on the areas of Business Litigation, Business Bankruptcy, and Business Planning.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:10:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>Consumer Consignments Are No Longer a Commercial Matter</title>
		<description><![CDATA[In In Re Music City RV, LLC,  the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee certified to the Tennessee Supreme Court the question of whether a consumer&#8217;s consignment of a recreational vehicle (RV) to a dealer for the purpose of selling the RV is a transaction covered under the UCC.  Nine individuals, including Dudley [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/03/consumer-consignments-are-no-longer-a-commercial-matter/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Federal Tax Returns Subject to Discovery</title>
		<description><![CDATA[In Smith, et al. v. MPIRE Holdings, LLC, et al., 2010 WL 711797 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 22, 2010), Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant ordered three individual defendants to produce copies of federal tax returns or, alternatively, to sign IRS forms 4506 in order to allow opposing counsel to obtain copies of the tax returns.  [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/03/federal-tax-returns-subject-to-discovery/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 6</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The last few posts have considered the Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v Keymon case and its holdings on the issues of trade secrets, non-competes, and damages.  So, what is the final take-away from this case?  While there are many interesting issues in the case, there are three key points to remember.
First, the Court granted [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/03/trade-secrets-non-competes-and-e-mail-do-not-go-well-together-unless-you-like-punitive-damages-part-6/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Rules of Service Important in Removal Actions</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee has issued another decision highlighting the critical role service of process plays in federal removal actions.   Last week, in &#8220;Removal in the Sixth Circuit: Ask Questions Now, Remove Later,&#8221; I discussed a recent case in which the Court granted a plaintiff&#8217;s motion to [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/03/rules-of-service-important-in-removal-actions/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 5</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The trial court found that Tammy Keymon violated the non-compete contained in her Employment Agreement and misappropriated trade secrets of her former employer.  The Court then found the misappropriation was &#8220;willful and malicious&#8221; and awarded exemplary damages.  Now it was time to total the bill.  
First, the trial court awarded $94,307 for [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/03/trade-secrets-non-competes-and-e-mail-do-not-go-well-together-unless-you-like-punitive-damages-part-5/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>e-Discovery Update – Zubulake Revisited</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Six years after the series of Zubulake decisions which established ground rules for preserving electronic discovery and also regarding how to allocate the costs of producing electronically stored information, the Southern District of New York has issued a new opinion about the duty to preserve electronic evidence.
Judge Schira Scheindlin, who authored the Zubulake decisions, chided [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/03/e-discovery-update-%e2%80%93-zubulake-revisited/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 4</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Tammy Keymon learned that e-mailing her former employer&#8217;s client information to herself violated Tennessee&#8217;s trade secret statute.  Even though most of the information could have been gathered from public sources, the aggregation and speed of acquisition from her former employer (which the Court found took reasonable steps to protect the information by password-protecting its [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/02/trade-secrets-non-competes-and-e-mail-do-not-go-well-together-unless-you-like-punitive-damages-part-4/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 3</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Things were not going well for Tammy Keymon, the defendant in Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v Keymon.  As I noted in the last post, the Court ruled she violated her non-compete.   However, Tammy&#8217;s legal woes were far from over.  Her former employer (against whom she had started a competing business the day after resigning) also sued [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/02/trade-secrets-non-competes-and-e-mail-do-not-go-well-together-unless-you-like-punitive-damages-part-3/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Removal in the Sixth Circuit: Ask Questions Now, Remove Later</title>
		<description><![CDATA[When it comes to satisfying the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446, some circuits allow parties to &#8220;remove first and ask questions later.&#8221;  Not so in the Sixth Circuit.  As one defendant seeking removal recently learned, the proper procedure in this circuit is to ask questions now and remove later. 
Under the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/02/removal-in-the-sixth-circuit-ask-questions-now-remove-later/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 2</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Ok.  Yesterday you quit your long-time job where you were a key employee.  What do you do today?  As Tammy Keymon learned in the case of Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v. Keymon, you shouldn&#8217;t contact the client you worked for on behalf of your old employer and solicit that client&#8217;s business (in Tammy&#8217;s case successfully).
But wait, [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/02/trade-secrets-non-competes-and-e-mail-do-not-go-well-together-unless-you-like-punitive-damages-part-2/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
