Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Under Seal v. Under Seal, 17 F.3d 1435, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case between a corporation (X Corp.) and its former in-house counsel (John Doe). X Corp. sued John Doe to require him to return documents he took and maintain confidentiality. John Doe counterclaimed, alleging retaliation for whistleblowing. The district court dismissed the counterclaim and granted X Corp. an injunction. John Doe appealed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding that Virginia law was properly applied, there was no reasonable belief of fraud, and injunctive relief was appropriate. The district court thoroughly addressed the relevant facts and law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Under Seal v. Under Seal, 17 F.3d 1435, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between a corporation (X Corp.) and its former in-house counsel (John Doe). X Corp. sued John Doe to require him to return documents he took and maintain confidentiality. John Doe counterclaimed, alleging retaliation for whistleblowing. The district court dismissed the counterclaim and granted X Corp. an injunction. John Doe appealed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding that Virginia law was properly applied, there was no reasonable belief of fraud, and injunctive relief was appropriate. The district court thoroughly addressed the relevant facts and law.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-02-23 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 17 F.3d 1435 Docket: 93-1495

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between a corporation (X Corp.) and its former in-house counsel (John Doe). X Corp. sued John Doe to require him to return documents he took and maintain confidentiality. John Doe counterclaimed, alleging retaliation for whistleblowing. The district court dismissed the counterclaim and granted X Corp. an injunction. John Doe appealed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding that Virginia law was properly applied, there was no reasonable belief of fraud, and injunctive relief was appropriate. The district court thoroughly addressed the relevant facts and law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    23 views2 pages

    Under Seal v. Under Seal, 17 F.3d 1435, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case between a corporation (X Corp.) and its former in-house counsel (John Doe). X Corp. sued John Doe to require him to return documents he took and maintain confidentiality. John Doe counterclaimed, alleging retaliation for whistleblowing. The district court dismissed the counterclaim and granted X Corp. an injunction. John Doe appealed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding that Virginia law was properly applied, there was no reasonable belief of fraud, and injunctive relief was appropriate. The district court thoroughly addressed the relevant facts and law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    17 F.

    3d 1435
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished
    dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
    of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
    Fourth Circuit.

    Under SEAL, Plaintiff-Appellee,


    v.
    Under SEAL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 93-1495.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Argued: December 10, 1993.
    Decided: February 23, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-92-338-A)
    John Michael Bredehoft, Charleson & Bredehoft, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia,
    for Appellant.
    Stephen William Robinson, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe,
    Washington, D.C.; James Severson, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown &
    Enersen, San Francisco, California, for Appellee.
    Elaine C. Bredehoft, Charleson & Bredehoft, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
    Appellant.
    E.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED
    Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    X Corporation filed suit against its former in-house counsel, John Doe, seeking
    1

    to require him to return approximately 4,300 pages of documents he removed


    from X Corp. when he left his employ as in-house counsel and to require him to
    maintain the confidences he had learned from X Corp. as its lawyer. John Doe's
    employment contract required such return and maintenance of confidences.
    John Doe counterclaimed, alleging that X Corp.'s firing of him was in
    retaliation for his having taken acts in furtherance of a qui tam action under the
    False Claims Act.

    The district court dismissed John Doe's counterclaim, and he has not appealed
    that ruling. Rather, he has appealed the district court's ruling permanently
    enjoining him from revealing information he acquired during the period of
    employment by X Corp.

    The issues presented by John Doe's appeal are:

    4 Was the district court's application of Virginia law rather than Pennsylvania law
    1.
    proper?
    5 Was the district court correct in determining on summary judgment that the
    2.
    evidence demonstrated that no reasonable attorney would believe that the
    information available to John Doe clearly established fraud on the part of X Corp.?
    63. Was the district court's award of injunctive relief in favor of X Corp. appropriate?
    7

    The opinion of the district court has thoroughly investigated the relevant facts
    and reached the right conclusions of law. X Corp. v. Doe, 805 F.Supp. 1298
    (E.D. Va.1992).* The record and opinion in the district court were ordered to be
    sealed, and we, finding confidentiality to be justified, do the same with respect
    to the record on appeal. All three of the issues presented were answered by the
    district court in the affirmative and we come to the same conclusions.
    Judgment is accordingly

    AFFIRMED.

    In particular, it was clear that, while John Doe was qualified as a lawyer in
    Pennsylvania, at the time he was terminated by X Corp. and for some time
    previously, he was an X Corp. employee in Virginia

    You might also like