Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lady Gaga and her former producer, Rob Fusari, won a court order that keeps a lid on the terms of a 2010 settlement agreement between them that has become pertinent to another case now headed for trial. They convinced a federal court in Newark that the agreement contains personal and financial information about them that will harm them and violate the terms of the 2010 agreement if it is publicly disclosed in the pretrial order of a pending suit, Starland v. Fusari, 2:2010cv04930 (D.N.J.), according to court papers.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a joint motion by Lady Gaga (aka Stefani Germanotta) and Fusari to partially seal the pretrial order and he required that a redacted version of the document be filed instead.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.