In a recent decision, Justice Joel M. Cohen of New York issued a significant sanction against law firm Robins Kaplan and its client, KrunchCash, totaling nearly $156,000. The penalty arises from what the judge deemed “surreptitious and repeated” access to the Dropbox files of their litigation adversary, the Pursuit Special Credit Opportunity Fund. The incident occurred when a third-party vendor inadvertently revealed a link to Pursuit’s Dropbox during discovery.
“Rummaging” Through Dropbox Files
Justice Cohen criticized Robins Kaplan for essentially “rummaging” through the contents of Pursuit’s Dropbox, emphasizing that the firm’s actions should have raised ethical concerns. The law firm claimed it avoided reviewing a directory labeled “Legal,” but the judge contended that Robins Kaplan should have refrained from examining any of the files.
A Warning for Future Discovery Requests
Beyond the financial penalty, Justice Cohen also ordered the immediate return of any documents that Pursuit had not subsequently produced during the discovery process. Additionally, he cautioned that he might restrict future discovery requests by Robins Kaplan if they continued to rely on information improperly obtained from Dropbox files.
Lawsuit Background
The Pursuit Special Credit Opportunity Fund had initiated a lawsuit against KrunchCash, alleging mismanagement of $10 million in funds. The incident stemmed from the inadvertent disclosure of a live link to Pursuit’s cloud-based corporate file directory during the discovery phase.
A Case of “Corporate Espionage”
Justice Cohen strongly condemned Robins Kaplan’s actions, characterizing their review of Pursuit’s documents as “something more akin to corporate espionage.” Instead of immediately ceasing their review and ensuring their client did the same, Robins Kaplan opted to use the information they obtained clandestinely to gain a litigation advantage.
A Troubling Letter
One particularly damning piece of evidence was a “blunt letter” sent by a Robins Kaplan attorney, Gabriel Berg, to Pursuit in November 2022. The letter claimed that the firm had downloaded the contents of Pursuit’s Dropbox and intended to use every document in the litigation. It alleged purportedly improper conduct by Pursuit that severely undermined their case, according to the letter. Pursuit was unaware of the defendants’ Dropbox access until receiving this letter.
Responses from Legal Parties
Gabriel Berg, the attorney who penned the contentious letter, defended his actions by stating that all referenced documents were eventually produced in discovery. He also asserted that he had not reviewed materials protected by attorney-client privilege.
Pursuit’s counsel, Renee Bea of Slarskey, underscored their commitment to advocating for their client and upholding ethical standards within the legal profession. Bea argued that the situation failed to adhere to the clear ethical rules governing handling unintended information disclosures. Furthermore, she contended that opposing counsel missed multiple opportunities to rectify their course of action.
Berg intended to appeal the judge’s decision, citing his long, unblemished legal career.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.