This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
On May 26, the District Court found in the In Re: Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation that a report prepared by Mandiant concerning the Capital One data breach (Breach Report) was not protected by the work product privilege and must be turned over to Plaintiffs. What are some lessons to be learned from this data breach litigation response?
A judge in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that Capital One must allow plaintiffs to review a cybersecurity firm’s forensic report related to the bank’s 2019 data breach. Capital One sought to keep the report private on the grounds that it is a protected legal document.
In the world of video cameras, it’s well understood that higher megapixel (MP) image sensors in a camera can capture more picture detail. However, there’s much more to image quality than pure megapixels since the quality and size of the sensor along with the lens plays a crucial part in determining the quality of each pixel.
