Is Your Privilege On Target? Lessons in Protecting Privilege from the Target Data Breach

Nov 30, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Natasha G. Kohne, Anthony T. Pierce, David S. Turetsky, Visiting Professor, College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity at the University of Albany

On October 23, 2015, the district court overseeing the class action litigation relating to the consumer data breach at Target issued an order that denied several challenges to Target’s assertions of attorney-client privilege over documents generated in connection with an investigation of the breach.  The Target court’s rationale is instructive for companies formulating their own procedures in the event of a similar breach.

In mid-December 2013, a vulnerability in Target’s system allowed hackers to gain access to consumer credit and debit card information.  After Target announced the breach, several lawsuits were filed.  In early 2014, Target established a Data Breach Task Force to assist its attorneys in investigating the breach.  Target’s outside counsel also engaged a team from Verizon Business Network Services (“Verizon”) to further inform its legal advice to the company.

Target withheld, as privileged, certain communications that it had with its Data Breach Task Force and others with Verizon.  The plaintiffs moved to compel these documents, arguing that they were not privileged because Target needed to undertake the investigation to protect itself against future breaches, even if there had been no lawsuit.

The court generally disagreed.  It found that Target had conducted an effective two-track investigation into the breach.  On one track Target conducted an “ordinary-course” investigation, focused on learning what caused the breach and how it could be remediated.  Independent of this investigation, Target “established its own task force and engaged a separate team from Verizon (“Privileged Verizon”) to provide counsel with the necessary input” to help protect the company’s legal interests.  The court noted approvingly that separate teams did not communicate with each other about the substance of the attorney-led litigation.

Target’s attorneys also stayed involved nearly every step of the way.  Internally, the Data Breach Task Force was co-chaired by Target’s Chief Legal Officer and included several attorneys.  Externally, Target’s law firms retained Privileged Verizon and were parties to Privileged Verizon’s engagement letter.

Not surprisingly, the only communications for which the court did compel productions were those that were not part of the separate investigation and did not include legal advice: Target was ordered to unredact various updates from Target’s CEO to its board of directors.

Overall, Target’s two-track investigation should be instructive to companies and their counsel who are still developing practices for dealing with a data breach.  Defined workstreams and ongoing input from attorneys improve the odds of maintaining a claim of privilege over post-breach investigations on behalf of counsel.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.