Got info to post? Fax it: 509 691-8405

March 11, 2007

Now remember folks you can copy any of this info and repost it elsewhere, and if you have any new info that should be put online you can fax it to:  509 691-8405 and we will see about getting it up.  How about some Corp HQ Tel #’s or various other items you might come up with!

If you don’t see something you like just keep scrolling down and sooner or later you will find an item you want to read.

Remember the First Amendment isn’t dead just yet, even if Kerry and Tarbutt would like it to be, so let’s keep the blogs alive out there in internet land.

If you post online you are a Journalist/Blogger and get the same rights as Huntley & Brinkley (OK you don’t have to be dead, but you get the drift, right???).

Eventually the Supremes will end up deciding if ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘press’ outweigh out of date and out of touch with reality copyright laws.

You can forget about ‘trade secret protection’ that went out with the baby and the bathwater when Tarbutt passed out copies of the Directives down to the level of door guard (sorry Scott, I mean TPS’s) and didn’t bother to get them back when the employee left.

============================= 

Target Corporation

v.

John Doe

Case Filing

Sept 5, 2006

This is the text of the Target v. Doe filing and other related documents, including the 1/23/07 order for Target to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed. The next landmark in this case should be March 23, 2007, when the 45 day extension granted by the Judge to find/serve Doe will expire.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Target Corporation is more use to being sued for copyright violations than to suing someone for violating their copyright! Seems like they don’t like it much if they aren’t doing it!!!

===========================================

Civil Name Search Results
5 Total Party matches for selection


TARGET

CORPORATION
NOS 820 after 09/05/2006 for ALL COURTS
Selections 1 through 5 (Page 1)

Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed

1 TARGET CORPORATION gandce1:2006cv0211609/05/2006 820Target Corporation v. Doe

2 TARGET CORPORATION ilndce1:2006cv0581410/25/2006 820ZM International, Inc. v. Target Corporation

3 TARGET CORPORATION cacdce2:2006cv0686910/27/2006 820World-Wide Drapery Fabric Inc v. Spencer Industries Inc

4 TARGET CORPORATION nysdce1:2006cv0814410/04/2006 820Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Target Corporation et al

5 TARGET CORPORATION nysdce1:2006cv1017710/20/2006 820Galbraith & Paul, Inc. v. Target Corporation et al

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

TARGET CORPORATION,
a Minnesota Corporation,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:06-CV-2116-CC

vs.

JOHN DOE, Defendant.

ORDER
This matter has been pending before the Court for 140 days. Although the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery, Plaintiff has not identified a defendant in this case and has not filed proof of service. The Court therefore DIRECTS Plaintiff to show cause within ten (10) days of the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service.

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2007.

s/ CLARENCE COOPER

CLARENCE COOPER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 9 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 1 of 1

=====================================================

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation, Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-2116-CC

vs.

JOHN DOE, Defendant.

ORDER
Plaintiff Target Corporation (“Target”) has requested a forty-five day
extension of the period within which it may serve a summons and complaint on the Defendant in this action. For good cause shown, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court hereby GRANTS Target’s request. The Court extends the period within which Target may serve a summons and complaint on the Defendant in this action by forty-five (45) days (ie: March 23rd), which shall be calculated from the date of this Order.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2007.

s/ CLARENCE COOPER

CLARENCE COOPER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 11

Filed 02/06/2007 Page 1 of 1

=====================================


Best view of the below document is found at:
http://pub.bna.com/eclr/062116.pdf

Site Meter


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

Target Corporation, a Minnesota
Corporation,

V

John Doe, Defendant 1 :06-CV-2116

For its Complaint, plaintiff Target Corporation (“Target”) states and alleges as
follows

INTRODUCTION
Target brings this action against an Internet user who is deliberately posting Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information across the Internet, including to a website hosted in Minnesota. Target seeks an injunction against Defendant, as well as other available legal and equitable relief arising from Defendant’s tortuous actions.

PARTIES
1 . Target is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in
Minneapolis, Minnesota .

2 . The true name and capacity of Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time
Defendant is known to Plaintiff only by his Internet username “Target Sucks .” Additionally,

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 29

2
mrpauljrogers@yahao com, chams46Chotmail .com, anonymousematl2@aol com,
ILovePie@yahoo.com, and usembassysouthafi-ica@hotmail.com

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3 This Court hasjurisdiction under 17 U .S C § 101 et seq, 28 U .S .C.
§ 1331(federal question); and 28 U .S C § 1338(a) (copyright) . This Court also has
jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U .S C. § 1332(a)(1) because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states .
4 . Venue in this District is proper under 28 U S C § 1391 and/or 28 U .S.C
1400(a). Although the true identity of Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, on information and belief, Defendant resides in the State of Georgia and a substantial part of the acts of infringement and rrusappropriahon complained of herein occurred in this District .

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Target’s Business and Valuable Intellectual Property
5 Target owns and operates retail merchandise discount stores across the United
States . Today, Target operates more than 1400 TARGET stores, including more than 45 TARGET stores in Georgia
6. As part of its effort to protect its retail stores from physical threats and
financial losses, Target, through considerable effort and expense, has created loss prevention procedures and protocols . One of the key loss prevention protocols created by Target is Target’s Asset Protection Directives (“Target AP Directives”)
7. The Target AP Directives are a set of written methods, techniques and
processes that are used by Target’s asset protection personnel to secure Target’s merchandise

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 29

Internet at the website wrAw .targetunion .org . and other property from theft, and to deal with the apprehension of shoplifters and other wrongdoers .
8 . The Target AP Directives are Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary,
and trade secret information .
9 The Target AP Directives include information that is not generally known to
the public or in the industry .
10 . Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this
information The Target AP Directives are password restricted and only available to those employees with a “need-to-know,” namely, the asset protection team .
11 . Target has an Information Security Policy where all employees, before
commencing their employment, sign an acknowledgement agreeing to maintain the
confidentiality of Target’s non-public information . and to never disclose it to anyone outside of the company.
Defendant’s Improper Use of Target’s AP Directives
12. On or around June 29, 2006, Defendant acquired a copy of Target’s AP
Directives from a recently terminated Target employee, Scott Hundt (“Hundt”) . Upon
information and belief, Hundt only knew Defendant because of his anti-Target website
postings Hundt sent a copy of the Target AP Directives to Defendant by email
13 Hundt, as a former asset protection specialist at a Target store in Wisconsin,
improperly kept the Target AP Directives upon termination .
14. On Sunday, July 2, 2006, Hundt also posted the Target AP Directives on the

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 3 of 29
4
15 . On or around July 10, Target learned of Hundt’s improper disclosure to
Defendant and the Internet. Shortly thereafter, Target contacted Hundt by telephone Hundt returned Target’s telephone call and acknowledged his wrongdoing . Hundt immediately deleted all references to the Target AP Directives from his hard drive and from the Internet .
16 . Target also demanded that Hundt contact Defendant and request that
Defendant destroy the Target AP Directives, delete any Internet postings of the Target AP Directives posted by him, and never use them again . Hundt stated that he did not know Defendant’s name or address, and did not personally know him, but had his email address . Hundt emailed Defendant and requested him to remove the postings, but Defendant failed to respond.
17. Hundt also provided Target with the email address that Hundt had for
Defendant Target emailed Hundt a cease and desist letter at that address, but received no response .
18 Instead of abiding by Target and Hundt’s demands to remove the Target AP
Directives, Defendant began posting the Target AP Directives on various retail-employee forums on the Internet, including the following locations :
http //targetsucks elevation24 coin
http //tivwtiv. targeiuniora org
http 11bullseyebb .aivardspace coin
http ://targetstoressuck blogspot corn
http //wwtiv retail-worker corn
http .//people tribe net

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 4 of 29
5
19. Beginning on or around July 12, 2006, Target, through its counsel, sent
demand letters to the moderators and administrators of the websites that posted Target AP Directives. Target advised them that Defendant, under the alias “Target Sucks,” was posting improperly Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information . (A copy of a sample letter sent to the moderators/administrators is attached as Ex . A )
20. In conjunction with writing to the moderators and/or administrators, Target
also attempted to contact Defendant directly by sending private messages to Defendant
through the forums . (A copy of two sample emails sent to Defendant are attached as Ex . B.)
21 In response to Target’s demand letters, the administrators and/or moderators
removed the Target AP Directives from their websrtes .
22. Defendant, however, did not respond to Target’s email messages . Instead,
Defendant re-posted the Target AP Directives as soon as the moderator and/or administrator removed them from the website. Target re-contacted the moderators and/or adrrunistrators, and the information was again deleted . Indeed, at least one of the websites – http //targetstoressuck blogspot.com – terminated Defendant’s blog .
23 . On July 27, 2006, the moderator of -www .retail-worker coin posted Target’s
cease and desist letter on its website and explained why she deleted Defendant’s posting of the Target AP Directives . An exchange between Defendant and the moderator ensued, whereby Defendant admitted that he was posting the Target AP Directives for no reason other than to harm Target . (A copy of the email exchange is attached as Ex C .)
24. Since July 27, 2006, Defendant continues to re-post (or attempt to re-post) the
Target AP Directives on the Internet At websites where his blog was inactivated, he has changed his username in order to be able to re-post the Target AP Directives

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 5 of 29
6
25 . Defendant’s actions are a complete and intentional disregard of Target’s
property rights . Since July 27, 2006, Defendant had posted on numerous websites that
“Target’s lawyers are monitoring this website .” In response to Target’s cease and desist letter, Defendant states on the Internet that he does not care whether the Target AP Directives are copyrighted or trade secrets :
As to whether or not said info is in some form `protected’, I have no idea and
don’t care I saw it both online already posted and via email and if someone at
T let the cat out of the bag then that is between T and them . I didn’t sign any
confidentiality agreement with them and really don’t give a rats ass if they like
it or not .
(A copy of the posting is attached hereto as Ex . D )
26. Defendant has never responded to Target’s demands for Defendant to cease
and desist posting the Target AP Directives .
27 . Through various investigative techniques employed by Target over the last
few weeks, Target believes that Defendant uses America On-Line as his Internet Service Provider Target believes that information obtained in discovery will lead to the verification of Defendant’s true name and address

COUNT I
Infringement of Copyrights
28 Target realleges and incorporates by reference herein the foregoing allegations
of the Complaint .
29 Target is, and at all relevant times has been, the copyright owners of exclusive
rights under United States copyright law with respect to certain copyrighted Target AP Directives .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 6 of 29

7
30 . The Target AP Directives are subject to a valid Certificate of Copyright
Registration issued by the Registrar of Copyrights to Target as specified on Exhibit E
31 . Among the exclusive rights granted to Target under the Copyright Act are the
exclusive rights to reproduce the Target AP Directives and to distribute the Target AP Directives
32 . Defendant, without the permission or consent of Target, has used, and
continues to use, the Internet, to disserrvnate and/or make available for distribution to others, the Target AP Directives .
33 . Defendant’s dissemination of the Target AP Directives is deliberate, willful,
malicious, oppressive, and without regard to Target’s proprietary rights
34 . As a result of Defendant’s infringement of Target’s copyrights and exclusive
rights under copyright, Target is entitled to statutory damages pursuant to 17 U S .C § 504(c)against Defendant for each infringement by Defendant . Target is also entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U S C . § 505 .
35 Defendant’s copyright infringement, and the threat of continuing infringement,
has caused, and will continue to cause, Target repeated and irreparable injury . It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of money damages that would afford Target adequate relief at law for Defendant’s acts and continuing acts, and a multiplicity ofjudicial proceedings that would be required Target’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate them for the injuries already inflicted and further threatened by Defendant . Therefore, Defendant should be restrained and enjoined pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U S .C. § § 502 and 503

COUNT II
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 7 of 29
Court
36. Target realleges and incorporates by reference herein the foregoing allegations
of the Complaint.
37 Defendant acquired confidential and proprietary information belonging to
Target.
38 Defendant was advised that the information he acquired was Target trade
secret information that should not be used or disclosed by him .
39 After receiving notice of the confidentiality of the Target trade secret
information, Defendant had a duty to Target to maintain the secrecy of this information and limit its use for the benefit of only Target .
40. This confidential and proprietary information had independent economic value
because it was not generally known to or readily ascertainable by persons outside of Target
41 Target intended to keep this information confidential and has made reasonable
efforts under the circumstances to maintain the secrecy of the information .
42. Defendant has used and/or disclosed, and continues to use and/or disclose,
such information without the express or implied consent of Target, for the benefit of himself . Such use constitutes a violation of Ga Stat . § 10-1-760 et seq, and Georgia common law principles against misappropriation of trade secrets
43 . As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s misappropriation of trade
secrets, Target has been damaged in an amount greater than $75,000, the specific amount of which shall be determined at trial In addition, Target has suffered irreparable harm and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the conduct of the Defendant is enjoined by this

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 8 of 29
9
WHEREFORE , Plaintiff Target Corporation respectfully requests judgment against
Defendant as follows :
An injunction, among other things, prohibiting Defendant from disclosing and
using the Target AP Directives and requiring Defendant to delete all Internet postings created by him of the Target AP Directives ;
2. Statutory damages for each infringement pursuant to 17 U .S.C § 504;
Recovery of Target’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred herein ; and
4 Any further relief that the Court deems just and equitable .

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 9 of 29
1 0
DUNCAN & MANGIAFICO, PC :
,., Dated. September 1, 2006
nnife C Adair (#001901)
uite 220
7000 Central Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone. (770)698-4560
Facsimile : (770)698-4565
FAEGRE & BENSON LLP :
s/Dara Mann
Dara Mann (#469065)
Suite 1900
3350 Riverwood Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30330
Telephone : (678) 627-8190
Facsitrule• (612) 766-1600
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
TARGET CORPORATION
Of Counsel
(upon admission pro hac vice)
James R. Steffen (MN #469065)
Kerry L. Bundy (MN #266917)
Faegre & Benson
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone : (612) 766-7000
Facsimle : (612) 766-1600
M2 2 08193 8 3 0 4
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 10 of 29
KERRY L BUNDY
kbundy”4fargrc cum
(6121766 .821
‘lien” VIA E-MAIL
Administrator of “Return of the Target Sucks” Website
VIA E-NL4[L
Dear “Jen”/Ms . Destree :
EXHIBIT A
FAEGRE
BENSON _1
U \ I TFn ST47 F5 F NG LAND GERMANY C HINA
July 11, 2005
Jennifer Destree
Registrant of elevation24 .com
733 Hickory Avenue
Orangevale, CA 95662
Re. Improper Disclosure of Target’s AP Directives on Website
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc . (collectively, “Farget”) in
connection with intellectual property matters and in connection with their ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information We are writing to you in your capacity as Administrator and/or Registrant of the blog website http //targetsucks elevation24 com to advise you that a post to the website contains Target confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed In addition, the post wrongfully reproduces copyrighted material belonging to Target
[n case you were not aware, on July 2, 2006, user name “Target Sucks” posted to your
website Target’s 2006 Asset Protection Directives . These directives include information which is used in the conduct of Target’s asset protection program and is not generally known to the public or in the industry. Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information As it appears from your posts that you are a current and,lor former Target employee, you are most likely aware that under Target’s policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to the Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information
As we hope you can appreciate, Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006
Asset Protection Directives on the “targetsucks” website to be a very serious matter . Allowing Target’s confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target’s security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity This not only jeopardizes Target’s property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target customers and employees
220 0 WE LLS FAR GO CE NTER 90 SOUTH SEVE NTH STREET N71 yINE 4P OL]S MINNESOTA SS4D2 39 0 1
TELEPH O NE 612 7ss – 7 0 0 o FACSIMILE 612 7 6 6-160 0 WWW FAEGRE CO M
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 11 of 29
M2 208102 34 01
Jennifer Destree
July 11, Zoos
Page 2
We note that the rules of your forum expressly state that “Me owners of Return of the
Target Sucks reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason .” Under the circumstances here, Target asks that you remove the July 2, 2006, and any other posting of Target’s 2006 Asset Protection Directives at your earliest possible convenience In addition, to allow us to follow up directly with the individual who wrongfully posted the 2006 Asset Protection Directives, we ask that you promptly supply us with contact information for poster “Target Sucks “
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated, and we look forward to receiving prompt
confirmation that you have removed the 2006 Asset Protection Directives from your site and to your provision of contact information for the individual that posted the2006 Asset Protection Directives.
Sincerely,
erry L Bundy
KLB/rew

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 12 of 29

EXHIBIT B
Bundy, Kerry L.
From, Bundy, Ke rry L
Sent : Monday, July 17, 2006 2 46 PM
To: ‘annonymousemad2@aol com’
Subject: RE Improper Posting of Target 2006 AP Directives
Attachments : scan pdf
s can p df (78 KB)
Please review the attached letter . Thank you .
Kerry Bundy
Faegre & Benson
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 S . 7th St .
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-766-8217
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 13 of 29
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Sir/Madame-
TELEPHONE 672 -766-70 00 1 F A CSI MILE 612 – 7 5 F – 560 9 1 %tiWW FAEGR h l’OM1t
FAEGRE
BENSON
UNITED STATES ENGLAND GERMANY I C HIN A
July 17, 2006
Username “Targetsuc ks”
annonvmousemail2 u,ao l. corn
Re: Improper Disclosure of Target’s AP Directives on Internet
K ERRY L.. BI11JD t
k burdyf.4faegrc com
(6 121 766-82 1
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, lnc (collect ively, “Target”) in
connect ion with intellectu a l property matters and in connection wit h thei r ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information This l etter is to advise you t hat certain postings made by you of t he Target 2006 Asset Protect i on Directives on the websites http•//targetsucks.elevation24 eom, hitp://www targetunion.org,
hltp.//bullseyeb8 awardspace coin, and http //targetstoressuck blogspot.com contain Target
copyrighted, confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed.
As you know, the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives include information which is
used in the conduct of Target’s asset protection program and is not generally known to the public or in the industry . These directives also include copyrighted material As we believe you also know, Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information Under Target’s policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to its Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information Access to these directives are restricted to Target AP employees and under no circumstances are they to be distributed to anyone outside of Target .
Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the Internet to be a very serious matter . Allowing Target’s confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target’s security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity. This not only jeopardizes Target’s property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target employees and guests
It is our understanding that, although you were provided improperly with the Target 2006
Asset Protection Directives by a former Target employee, that person has requested that you delete all postings made by you that contain the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives We hope and expect that upon review of the facts set forth in this letter, you will delete all such
2200 WEL LS FARGO CENTER I 9 0 SOUTH S EVFNTH S TRF FT I M17 INYCAPOLIS MINNESOTA S5a0 1-3 9 61
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 14 of 29
h12 20910 329 0 3
Targetsucks
July 17, 2006
Page 2
postings at your earliest convenience . Target also requests that you immediately destroy all
paper and electronic copies of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives in your possession .
Please provide us with prompt, written confirmation of your compliance with these requests no later than noon on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 . If we do not receive timely confirmation from you, we will assume that you do not intend to remove your wrongful posts, and we will proceed to consider and take further appropriate action .
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated .
Sincerely,
CJ
Kerry undy
KLB/rew

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 15 of 29

July 27, 2006
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Sir/Madame .
T F I F 11110N’ F 612-7 6 5 7 000 HALS1%111 F 617 766 1600 %VW%Y F AI’C R F C UN7
COPY FAEGRE C OPY
BENSON
lLP
UNITED STATES I ENGLAND GERMANY ‘ CHINA
KERRY L B[,T1DY
kbundy i~ faegre coin
(6 12) X 65- 82 1 1

Username “Targetsucks”
Re: Improper Disclosure of Target’s AP Directives on Internet
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc. (collectively, “Target”) in
connection with intellectual property matters and in connection with their ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information . This letter is to advise you that certain postings made by you of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the website http //Kww retail-worker coin contain Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed .
As you know, the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives include information which is
used in the conduct of Target’s asset protection program and is not generally known to the
public or in the industry These directives also include copyrighted material . As we believe you also know, Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information Under Target’s policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to its Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information Access to these directives are restricted to Target AP employees and under no circumstances are they to be distributed to anyone outside of Target Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the Internet to be a very serious matter. Allowing Target’s confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target’s security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity This not only jeopardizes Target’s property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target employees and guests.
We hope and expect that upon review of the facts set forth in this letter, you will delete all such postings at your earliest convenience . Target also requests that you immediately destroy al paper and electronic copies of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives in your possession .

Please provide us with prompt, written confirmation of your compliance with these requests no later than noon on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 If we do not receive timely confirmation from you, we will assume that you do not intend to remove your wrongful posts, and we will proceed to consider and take further appropriate action
2 200 wbLtS FA UCO C F VT FK 90 SOUT H yF.v h `T H ST1tFF 7 t11 NtYrA P OL 1 5 M1uNVk SUTA SS ao 2-7 901

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 16 of 29

M2 20814344 01
Targetsucks
July 27, 2006
Page 2
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kerry L. Bundy
KLBlrew
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 17 of 29

WORKER
Search
Guess I’ll hang out here then .
<>
Comment viewing options
Flat list -expanded ~ Date – oldest first T 10 comments per page T
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click “Save settings” to
activate your changes .
Discount?
( Bes t Buy Fo rum)
5 repli es
( latest repli e s)
Gr ea t Customer Qu es ti ons
sleK Says:
Thu,07/27/200 6
6 07pm
EXHIBIT C
RETifIL
Home
News
F orum
About the I W W
ISite Stats
I Site Tech Sup p ort
C o nta ct Us
Username:
Password : ‘~
Create ne w a ccount
Re q uest new p assword
Interesting Employees
(Walgreens forum)
(0 replies)
Geek Squad T Shirt
(Best Buy Forum)
(0 replies)
Travel Reimbursement
Question
(Home Depot Forum)
(1 reply)
freight metrics
(Home Depot Forum)
(0 replies)
Night I’m sorry
(Lowes Forum)
(0 replies)
Most Recently
Commented
Home » Forum * Specific Stores * Target Employee Forums Anyone Know Why
The Target Sucks Forum Is Down?
Anyone know why the target sucks forum is- down?
Submitted by backroompeon on Mon, 02/13/2006 – 1 14am.
I am sorry to see it gone . And I had been on there earlier tonight .
loin or register to post comments j f I11 I ~ I 0 I aY ILo Ile I
P5
Targetflowslave
Says:
Mon, 02/13/2006 –
5 2 4am
redandkhak i
Says:
Thu, 02/ 1 6/2006 –
11 23am
Thats what i want to know
login or register to post comments
backroompeon wrote :
I am sorry to see it gone . And I had been on
there earlier tonight .
Guess I’ll hang out here then .
Who gives a flying f**k where it went. It’s narrowminded
people are gone, at least for now, until they start making
trouble here or somewhere else . You know the ones, the die
hard fans of target. Targets cks was a corporate venture .
login or register to post mments
there seems t o be s ome delet in g of thi s info g oin g on
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 18 of 29
sle K Says:
Thu, 07/27/2006 –
11 .34pm
login or register to post comments
login or register to post comments
i0 MYYk ic-p!
nAaa m IC
Q -0 MY MSN
Technoratl
∎lDG PINCER
JIM B1oglLae a
i0 6-
0 MrFeeascer
Jim .aia 0)4
[p IInMF111
s1eK Says :
Fri, 07/28/2006 –
12-56am
More like : If they want to F . with their
customers then their customers may want to
pay them back if they get a chance .
(Cir[ui t C ity Fo rum)
i 76 rep lies
(la tes t repl ies )
Inte resting Empl oy ees
(Wa lg reens forum)
0 repl i es
(latest r eplies)
shopl i fting
(walgreens forum)
5 repl ies
( la te st repl i e s)
Great p ost from HD Forum
( Your favo urite type o f c
( Cowes Fo r um)
3 replies
( latest rep lies )
A ll fo rums
Who’s online
T h ere are curre n tly 1 7 use rs
a nd 77 gue s t s on l ine
Online users
Haggi
happyone
Ruin-Nation
ODCST
zsh
Shrinky
BlindsGirl
moblus8
Robber Baron
drucco99
LazyOne
Hamster
rid
9W bh5X4Kfy
HDMN
urathug
yeraC1951
Read our feed
Target’s lawyers are out and about issuing cease & desist
letters.
edit: More information – Our first Cease & Desist, courtesy
of Target
login or register to post comments
Target Sucks .. wrote:
I’m not bringing up p. 2 of Kerrys letter . My
machine or didn’t it post?
Your machine, I suppose, as I can view it in its entirety and
I’ve heard no other complaints .
sleK Says: Assuming that you’re the same “Target Sucks” that’s been
rnu, 07/27/2006 – posting the AP Directives everywhere, could you explain the
11 51pm significance of them or explain why you appear rather hellbent
on keeping them in the public domain?
I don’t understand either the relevance or the purpose and I
haven’t been able to find a suitable explanation .
sleK Says :
Fn , 07/28/2006 –
12 33am
Ok, so it is just disclosure for the sake of disclosure .
Quote:
BTW : Thought you caved in ra ther quickly on
that .
Well, if there was some point to it I’d probably be willing to
help. But, as it appears that there’s really no cause and
you’re just stirring the pot to see the water go ’round,
there’s no reason for me to get involved .
login or register to post comments
Quote :
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 19 of 29
login or register to post comme n ts
Fair enough, but surely you understand how unreasonable it
is to expect site ops’, like myself, to support your apparent
grudge when faced with the costly prospect of litigation?
Quote:
It may have taken 3 yrs but Tarbutt is spending
some cash trying to put the genie back in the
internet bottle .
It’s a beautiful thing . Once it’s out there it’s out there .
login or register to post comments
sleK Says :
Fri, 07/28/2006 –
6 52pm Quote:
I would only opine that it seems to say that
once info is published that is the end of
confidentiality .
That may be so but it doesn’t dissolve liability.
IANAL, but it appears to me that an entity needs only to
establish the economic value of the information and
demonstrate “reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy” of
the information before injunctive relief and damages can be
granted.
Quote:
Gee Slick, a 33 year old female ski bum ran
right over you I I I !
Is this addressed to me?
Look, I’m just trying to help as it’s pretty clear that you
haven’t the faintest clue about what you’re getting yourself
into .
The simple fact is that you may end up in court, facing
whatever injunctive relief and damages that Target puts on
the table, should Target choose to pursue you . From
experience, I can tell you that it’s not a fun place to be . But,
if you’re intent on finding out for yourself, keep it up and
good luck.
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 20 of 29
Target’s Lawyers are monitoring this web site!
Main Menu
Home
11′ Ask the Rep
p Union Info
Forum
13 Blogs
d Chat
° News Feeds
P Create Content
° Recent Posts
V Site Map
a Site Stats
13 About This Site
Contact Us Comme nt viewi ng options
User {ogin Jflat list -expanded :rDa#e -oldest first .T 1 0 comments per page :-1j ;
Save settings
S elect your preferre d way to d ispl ay th e commen ts a n d click “Save se ttings” to activa t e your changes
fag in
∎ Create new account
∎ Reques t new password
login or register to post comments
Get Organized
Contact us to get more
Info about organizing your
store
Ask the Rep
∎ A potential problem
∎ Tec h n i cal
S up port/Trainer
∎ Target
∎ fired from target
∎ Unfai r treatment
∎ Hors e play t ur n ed lawful ?
∎ Do I lose shift
differential? EXHIBIT D
Forum topics
Posted by
Rockta ne
Put yourself in Target’s place : one of your ex-employees has
posted on a website confidential proprietary information about
The Target Stores Employees’ Web Site
Home » Forum N Workplace Issues » General Co nversation
Posted by Target Sucks – at 2006-07-28 08 : 38
This site is being monitored by the Faegre Benson law firm on behalf of Target Stores .
The screen name used is normally ‘bunkl’ and this person is Kerry L . Bundy of the law
firm of Faegre Benson 612 766 8217. kbundy@faegre .com .
He and his firm are monitoring this web site for anti Target activities .
FYI : http ://www.retail-worker.com/documents/20060727 .target cease_and_desist .pdf
and their web site is www .Faegre .com
pri nt er friendly page
Username :
Password :
Posted by This is horrible news . I hope this site does not give up your
jollyrancher information . Shameful of them to even ask . It’s one thing to ask
Fn, 2006-07-28 to have your post removed, but I’m sure there is some sort of
11 :08 privacy act . A million scurges on Mr . Bundy and Faegre Benson
Law firm.
Fast answers
from union reps
∎ direct deposit
∎ ETL Round-Robin
interview
∎ 8 hours between shifts
Posted by The link above refers to a different site, not this one, and the
Rocktane document in question is confidential proprietary information, not
Fri, 2006-07-28 anything to do with organizing or union activities . I’m sure they
12 :56 check this site also, as you would expect if there’s a risk that a
disgruntled employee or ex-employee might be revealing
company secrets . I’m shocked that anyone would be surprised
by this .
l ogi n or reg is ter to po s t comment s
f Posted by I guess it doesn’t surprise me that they monitor the site . But to
i jollyrancher sic their attorneys on someone. After my experience at Target
Fri, 2006-07-28 and seeing the Nazi behavior there, I hate everything about it .
13 :17 And any company that would work for them . Plague on them all
for supporting a company tha treats people so poorly .
login or reg iste r to post c omments
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 21 of 29
—— —
Fri, 2006 -07- 28
j 13 :40
log i n or register to post comments
login or regis t er to post comments
Do I want to pursue
becoming an etl~~~ help
me out
(General Conversation)
4 replies
(latest reply)
2 min 9 sec ago
ad takedown
(General Conversation)
1 replies
(latest reply)
8 min 40 sec ago
∎ Mi[ch Stover’s
Distribution Roundtable
(Target Distribution
Center)
32 replies
(latest reply)
2 hours 25 min ago
∎ Target’s Lawyers are
monitoring this web site
(General Conversation)
21 replies
(latest reply)
2 hours 32 min ago
∎ Target Wal-Mart Liter
(wages and benefits)
19 replies
(latest reply)
1 day 18 hours ago
∎ Target Sucks message
board
(Announcements and
Information)
14 replies
(latest reply)
1 day 19 hours ago
Posted by
Rocktane
Fri, 2006 – 07-28
15 :55
logi n or re gi ster to post comments
All forums
Who’s online
there are currently I user
and 26 guests online
Online users
∎ accidentallyhere
Syndication
login or register to po st commen ts
~— –
Poste d by
–__1
New Topics
∎ ad takedown
(General Conversation)
(1 reply)
∎ Do I want to pursue
becoming an etl’77 help
me out
(General Conversation)
(4 replies)
vacation hours
(wages and benefits)
(1 reply)
∎ Target’s Lawyers are
monitoring t’gis web site’
(General Conversation)
(21 replies)
Post-Interview Question
(General Conversation)
(0 replies)
Most Recently
Commented
the inside operations of a business you own, which, as one of
your employees, they signed an agreement not to reveal, and
which could cost your company millions of dollars . Y don’t know
if such an offense would be legally prosecutable, but at would
certainly warrant pressure to stop it. I would expect you to pull
out all the stops . What is different about Target
Posted by I can see Target’s side I guess, but then maybe they shouldn’t
i jollyrancher treat people so poorly . I think they are a shitty company and
Fn, 2006-07-28 they and anyone that they retain, are one in the same, bastards .
i 15 :30 This lawfirm should be embarrassed to be associated with
Target.
jollyrancher wrote :
I can see Target’s side !guess, but then maybe they
shouldn’t treat people so poorly . I think they are a
shitty company and they and anyone that they
retain, are one in the same, bastards . This lawfirm
should be embarrassed to be associated with Target .
I agree that Target should not treat people badly . Nor should
any other company, in an ideal world . I am apparently lucky in
that I have not had your negative experience ; Target has
treated me pretty well . I’ve had a couple of GLs that required
me to use my diplomatic skills to get along with, and once or
twice I was denied a day off that I had requested, but otherwise,
I have no real complaints . I get chills when I think how I almost
got stuck working at a focal assembly plant when the Target DC
was having its job fair. That place would have been a nightmare
if they’d hired me ; just the few days I worked there as a temp
creeped me out for weeks . Thank god Target hired me ; there is
nothing they’ve thrown at me yet that I couldn’t handle, or that
even approached some of the crap I’ve had to put up with at
other places . Obviously, it must be a lot different in your neck of
the woods .
~ Posted by I think it probably does have a lot to do with what part of the
jollyrancher country you are in . Certain people get into power and become
Fn, 2006-07-28 control freaks and make everyone miserable . And because of
16:06 that, sites like this form and people leak out sensitive info . V
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 22 of 29
Target Sucks –
Fri, 2006-07-28
17 :04
Firefox is a free, open
source web browser that’s
way better than Internet
Explorer
login or register to post comments
i Posted by Duly noted on the gender of Kerry . I went off of the original
jollyrancher post . Even worse in my opinion for a woman to represent such a
i Fn, 2006-07-28 selfish company That is funny about trying to keep the genie in
17:18 the bottle. LOL
login o r re gi ster to p ost comments .
Posted by
Target Sucks –
XML is a way t o gather
we b s i te he adlines without
visi t in g the site You can
use a p rogr am like
F eed R eader o r a web
b rows e r like Fire Fo x
~^ GEi F I REFO X
Ci
jollyran icher wrote:
This is horrible news . I hope this site does not give
up your information . Shameful of them to even ask .
It’s one thing to ask to have your post removed, but
I’m sure there is some sort of privacy act . A million
scurges on Mr . Bundy and Faegre Benson haw firm .
[b]
As pointed out by another poster the site threatened is the 2
retailworker .com sites ( & retail-worker.com) I also noted that
one site on which this was posted is now closed down with no
prior notice .
As far as I know it was posted on this site by another poster and
even prior to that it was emailed to me and it was put onto
several sites .
I believe that the OP here and the owner of the TS site closed
were both employees of T, but I don’t know that for certain, well
1 I don’t know for certain . I doubt that either of them are still T
employees .
As to whether or not said info is in some form ‘protected’, I have
no idea and don’t care . I saw it both online already posted and
via email and if someone at T let the cat out of the bag then that
is between T and them . I didn’t sign any confidentiality
agreement with them and really don’t give a rats ass if they like
it or not .
My private opinion, and I am not an atty, is that once someone
else posted it online it was free for anyone to copy or repast . I
think there may be some sort of constitutional argument there
about ‘free speach’ or some such BS but I will leave it to more
smarter people than me to look into that .
All I can predict is that other nice people, like those reading this,
will probably copy it and repost it on other sites, so the people at
Faegre Benson will be quite busy trying to get the genie back
into the Internet bottle .
BTV1f : Kerry L. Bundy is a ‘she’ (W/F/33) not as initially identified
as a ‘he’ . Take a look at :
http ://www .Faegre.com/lawyer_bio .aspx7pid=7371
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 23 of 29
Not surprisingly, there are advantages and disadvantages to
using trade secret protection to secure different types of
business assets. Deciding whether to patent certain technology –
or keep it under wraps as a trade secret – is often a tough
strategic call . Usually, the decision rests on the type of
information that needs to be protected .
Most intellectual property owners find the indefinite time limit of
trade secret protection appealing, assuming that the information
can be maintained in confidence and not easily replicated in the
market. For example, say that the knowledge you wish to protect
is a manufacturing process . If you patent the process, you get
protection for about twenty years . Even though your competitors
know exactly what you’re doing, they can’t copy your process
when your patent expires, however, it’s open season on that
technology .
By contrast, if you rely on trade secret protection to secure your
process, your protection lasts forever, as long as the process
Fri, 2006-07-28 jollyrancher wrote :
17 :27
Duly noted on the gender of Kerry . I went off of the
original post . Even worse in my opinion for a woman
to represent such a selfish company . That is funny
about trying to keep the genie in the bott le. LOL
Here is a longish brief on info confidentiality . A casual reading by
me seems to suggest that once info is published it looses its
confidential trade secret status . Take a read and inform yourself
on the issue :
An Ove rview of Trade Secret Pro tection
Can you keep a secret?
That’s the challenge for intellectual property owners who rely on
trade secret protection to secure their sensitive business assets .
Unlike patents, most copyrighted works, and trademarks – which
must be publicly disclosed in order to seek recourse from
competitors who want to stea l them — trade secrets have legal
value only to the extent that they stay secret .
File a patent on a new chemical or drug, and you can enjoy
exclusive legal rights for about 20 years (often less in practical
market terms) . As long as you keep trade secrets away from
prying eyes, however, they last forever . The trade-off Once
they’re out, they’re gone . A no-longer-secret trade secret enjoys
essentially no legal protection under trade secret laws .
Just about anything can qualify as a trade secret – formulae,
computer programs, business methods, database information,
customer lists – basically, any knowledge that has economic
value because people such as competitors don’t know about it
and could profit from it if they did . It doesn’t necessarily have to
be new, different, or unique, as you would expect from patented
material and/or even fixed in a tangible form, as with
copyrighted works . As long as the information has value because
no one else knows about it – and you take reasonable efforts to
avoid disclosure – it can qualify as a trade secret .
Pros a nd Cons
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 24 of 29
Protecting Your Trade Secrets
How do you take reasonable efforts to protect your trade
secrets Here are a few key stepsremains
secret. However, if a competitor is able to replicate the
process (without stealing your information), such as through
reverse engineering, they’re free to do so at a ny time, and there
is usually little or nothing you can do about it . So the question
your business faces is : how vulnerable is your knowledge to
being replicated or discovered by others The answer will shape
the kind of IP protection you’re likely to seek .

Misappropriation
Unlike patents and copyrights that are governed by federal law,
trade secret protection derives primarily from state law . The
origins of trade secret doctrine date all the way back to a
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in 1868, and
while numerous courts (including federal courts) have weighed
in on specific aspects of trade secret law ever since, no federal
civil legislation has ever tackled trade secrets directly . Instead,
trade secret laws have been enacted on a state-by-state basis .
Minnesota was the first state to adopt the Uniform Trade Secret
Act (UTSA) in 1980, and more than forty other states have since
followed suit . The UTSA was adopted in the wake of an
increasing reliance by businesses on trade secret protection and
a desire to codify common law trade secret principles .
Distilled to its essence, under the UTSA and most state
interpretations, the existence of a trade secret is established
using a two-fold test . First, you must have knowledge or
information that derives independent economic value from not
being generally known or readily ascertainable . Second, you
must have taken reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of
the knowledge or information . In that circumstance, the llTSA
provides protection by prohibiting the “misappropriation” of
trade secrets and providing various remedies, including
injunctive relief and damages .
“Misappropriation” covers both obtaining trade secrets through
improper means and disclosing or using them without consent .
The UTSA also casts a broad net to include not only actual
misappropriation (where the theft or disclosure has actually
occurred), but also “threatened” misappropriation (which some
courts have held to include events such as a key employee
bolting to a competitor and putting a trade secret at serious risk
of disclosure) .
What kinds of actions or circumstances create the greatest risk
for trade secret owners Consider the following :
One of your employees or independent contractors who has
knowledge of your trade secrets leaves to join one of your
competitors
One of your suppliers or distributors also works for a key
competitor
One of your licensees, customers, business partners, or
employees decides to start a competing business
You disclose your confidential information to a prospective
business partner, and the deal fails through
This is not an exhaustive list, just a sample of the many ways in
which day-to-day business dealings put your trade secrets at
risk of misappropriation
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 25 of 29
Extend the security procedures to computer systems . Obviously,
trade secrets stored in electronic format are particularly
susceptible to theft . The entire subject of information systems
security may warrant a thorough review by the organization, to
minimize the possibility of external “hacking” or internal security
breaches. The same care regarding access and labeling that is
extended to physical space or documentation, should extend to
computer systems where trade secrets are stored .
Be mindful of third parties . If business associates, prospective
customers, or members of the public have access to facilities in
which trade secrets are stored or used, take particular care to
avoid inadvertent disclosure . This might include accidents
(where documents are left carelessly in open view) or even
deliberate but unintentional disclosures (such as tour guides or
other employees who inform visitors about the project or
process within the facility) .
Screen speeches and publications where appropriate . Trade
secrets often wind up being disclosed unintentionally at trade
shows or in magazine articles, publications, press releases, or
speeches . Engineers, marketing executives, mid-level managers,
and others may exchange ideas with colleagues or share
information publicly because they are unaware of its sensitivity .
Put it in writing . Consider keeping a written statement of your
trade secret security policy . This provides two advantages . Fir st,
” unwritten rules” may wind up being laxly or inconsistently
enforced within the organization . Second, documented trade
secret pol icies provide evidence in court of the seriousness of
the company ‘s efforts to protect its secrets .
Let your employees know . A proper trade secret protection plan
should make employees aware of the confidentiality of certain
information and, where appropriate, periodically remind them of
thei r obligations to keep that information secure . This would
include hav ing employees counter-sign wr itten confidentiali ty
agreements. In addition, companies should consider conducting
“exit interviews ” with departing employees that i nclude a written
reminder of their ongoing responsibility to keep trade secret
information secure .
Restrict access . “Sorry, that information is on a need-to-know
basis.” Where appropriate, keep trade secret information
physically separate from nonproprietary information, and restrict
access only to those who genuinely require it . Depending on the
nature of the intellectual property, this segregation may be as
simple as keeping information in a separate filing cabinet, or it
may necessitate building an entirely separate and secure facility .
Implement physical security. Consider providing additional
security for the information through locked doors, gates, and
cabinets. Again, the level of physical security will vary depending
on the nature of the information and how the information is used
in the business operations .
Consider labeling trade secret documentation . It can be very
easy to reproduce, scan, and distribute documents today . Not
only should documentation related to trade secret information be
treated with special care, but in appropriate circumstances, it
may be prudent to label trade secret documents as “SECRET” or
“CONFIDENTIAL .” A company may also want to educate its
employees who have access to such documents about their
status, including the sensitivity of and destruction of trade secret
documents .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 26 of 29
login or registe r to post comments
1 2 3 next page last page
One tool for reducing this risk is implementing a policy of prescreening
all public communications .
Protect yourself with contracts . The nature of many businesses
may require a company to disclose its trade secrets to potential
buyers, licensees, joint venture partners, or other outsiders .
When engaging in these kinds of third-party transactions,
consider monitoring the flow of information carefully and
documenting the nature of the trade secrets exposed and the
specific limited use to which they may be put . This may include
specific confidentiality agreements with the third parties.
When properly identified and secured, trade secrets can often be
the most powerful of the various forms of intellectual property
protection, given the indefinite lifespan they can offer . Trade
secret owners can also obtain swift and dramatic relief in court if
they act quickly and have taken care along the way to document
and follow their trade secret protection plan . But trade secrets
are, by their very nature, fragile . A secret only has value to the
extent you can keep it a secret .
And in case you wondered who wrote this it is our pal Ms . Kerry
L Bundy the 33 yr old ski bunny from Mn .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 27 of 29
Targ et Corporation
1000 Nictollet Mail
ASCIGIVED
JUL yl 4Y11
EXHIBIT E
Certificate of Registration
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
2200 Wells Frrgo Center, 90 South 7th S tree t
Minneapolis, MN 55402
~~~~~ 611-766-8508
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 29 of 29

 

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

1:06-cv-02116-CC

Target Corporation v. Doe

Clarence Cooper, presiding
Date filed: 09/05/2006
Date of last filing: 02/05/2007

History Doc. No. Dates Description

1 Filed: 09/05/2006
Entered: 09/06/2006
Complaint
Docket Text: COMPLAINT filed. Consent form to proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions provided. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 555387.), filed by Target Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet)(hfm) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions.

2 Filed & Entered: 09/06/2006
Terminated: 09/11/2006
Motion to Expedite
Docket Text: MOTION to Expedite Discovery and for Expedited Hearing on Motion with Brief In Support by Target Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Brief Memorandum in Support of Motion for Expedited Hearing and Discovery# (2) Affidavit Affidavit in Support of Memorandum# (3) Exhibit Proposed Subpoena to AOL# (4) Exhibit Proposed Subpoena to Hotmail# (5) Exhibit Proposed Subpoena to Yahoo)(Adair, Jennifer)
— Filed & Entered: 09/07/2006
Submission to District Judge
Docket Text: Submission of [2] MOTION to Expedite Discovery and for Expedited Hearing on Motion, submitted to District Judge Clarence Cooper. (vs)

3 Filed & Entered: 09/11/2006
Order on Motion to Expedite
Docket Text: ORDER granting in part and denying as moot in part [2] Motion for expedited hearing. Signed by Judge Clarence Cooper on 9/11/06. (vs)

4 Filed: 09/11/2006
Entered: 09/13/2006
Terminated: 10/20/2006
Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION for Admission of Kerry L. Bundy Pro Hac Viceby Target Corporation.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #555753. (dr)

5 Filed & Entered: 09/19/2006
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Target Corporation Notice of Service of Subpoena upon Yahoo! Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A – Subpoena and Proof of Service)(Adair, Jennifer)

6 Filed & Entered: 09/20/2006
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Target Corporation Notice of Service of Subpoena upon Microsoft Corp. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A – Subpoena and Proof of Service)(Adair, Jennifer)

7 Filed & Entered: 09/21/2006
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Target Corporation Notice of Service of Subpoena upon AOL (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A – Subpoena and Proof of Service)(Adair, Jennifer)

8 Filed & Entered: 10/20/2006
Order on Application for Admission PHV
Docket Text: ORDER granting [4] Application of Kerry L. Bundy for Admission Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Clarence Cooper on 10/20/06. (vs)

9 Filed & Entered: 01/23/2007
Order to Show Cause
Docket Text: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Pla is Directed to show cause within 10 days of the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed w/o prejudice for failure to effect service. Signed by Judge Clarence Cooper on 1/23/07. (vs)

10 Filed & Entered: 02/01/2007
Response to Order to Show Cause
Docket Text: RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: [9] Order to Show Cause. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit Declaration of Kerry L. Bundy)(Adair, Jennifer)
— Filed & Entered: 02/05/2007
Submission to District Judge
Docket Text: Submission of [10] Response to Order to Show Cause, submitted to District Judge Clarence Cooper. (vs)

————————

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Jobs Home > Job Search > MN > Minneapolis > Target > Paralegal

Paralegal: Target

Job ID 41066BR
Company Name Target
Job Category Legal


Location Minneapolis, MN
Position Type Full-Time, Employee

Salary $60K -$70K
Experience 2-5 Years Experience
Desired Education Level Bachelor of Science
Date Posted February 22, 2007

View Target profile and job listings

See Yourself At Target
Employing more than 270,000 team members in 47 states, we value creativity, diversity and collaboration in all its forms. From stocking our stores’ shelves with fantastic products at great prices to a deep commitment to community giving, Target strives for excellence in every area.

Law

Find a career with legal appeal. Provide guidance and support for Target and its subsidiaries.

Purpose:

As a Paralegal, you will provide support to outside counsel in lawsuits involving incidents at Target Stores in East Coast jurisdictions. Your responsibilities will include gathering documents/information requested in discovery, identifying persons with knowledge within Target Corporation, reviewing draft discovery responses, and preparing for and scheduling depositions. You will research and obtain information within Target Corporation to determine whether it is appropriate to tender a litigation matter to a vendor or business partner. You will also work as a team with a Litigation Specialist at Target’s third-party claims administrator and outside counsel to ensure that Target’s general liability litigation is managed effectively and efficiently.

See Yourself:

Third-party Subpoena Support:eview subpoenas directed to Target Corporation primarily seeking information related to Target Stores located on the East Coast; work with outside counsel as necessary to object or respond to subpoenas as appropriate; gather information responsive to subpoenas.

Store Support: You will field telephone calls and other inquires from team members at East Coast Target stores regarding subpoenas, litigation, shoplifting/criminal prosecutions and other legal issues.

No travel required.

See The Rewards
Eligible team members will receive one of the best earnings packages anywhere, including competitive pay, all-around insurance coverage, 401(k), flexible scheduling, training and development and many other perks and benefits. See a place of exciting challenges and rewards. See a place where you’ll feel empowered to do something brilliant. See a place filled with creativity and unlimited opportunity. See a place where ‘work’ could easily be called play. To apply, visit our careers Web site at Target.com/careers to view all career opportunities. See yourself here. Target is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer and is a Drug-Free Workplace.

=================================

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Target AP

Directives

NOTE: Print out a copy for yourself and repost this on other web sites!

Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

PREFACE

A. Directives
Assets Protection (AP) Directives are the basic guidelines by which we conduct our business. As an AP team member, you are expected to follow the Assets Protection Directives at all times. Violation of any Directive shall be handled according to the applicable coaching and corrective action policy (see Corporate Policies – Counseling and Corrective Action).Directives are to be followed by all team members and if you are instructed to violate a Directive you must immediately notify your supervisor. If the order involves your supervisor, notify the next level AP team member.

The Directives are in addition to, and not intended to supersede any company policies and procedures. The Directives are not contracts, expressed or implied. Following the Directives does not guarantee continued employment by Target.NOTE:If you become involved in situations that are not covered by a Directive, you are expected to act in Target’s best interests and in a manner that avoids liability.

B. Note, Caution, Warning StatementsNote, Warning and Caution statements are used within the Directives to emphasize important and critical information. AP team members must read these statements to help ensure their safety and the safety of other team members and guests.

1. Note – A Note is a statement used to notify people of information that is important, but not hazard related.

2. Caution – A Caution indicates a potentially hazardous situation that, if not avoided, could result in minor or moderate injuries.

3. Warning – A Warning indicates a potentially hazardous situation that, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury.

C. Revision Number/Effective Dates/Highlighted TextEach directive shall be noted with a Revision Number, the Effective Date of the revision and Change bars.1. Revision Number – Directive revisions will be sequential indicating the number and year of the revision (example: 01-2006 = the first revision in 2006, 02-2006 = the secondrevision in 2006, etc.).2. Effective Date – All Directives shall include the date the revision becomes effective.3. Highlighted Text – Highlighted text (red font) is used to indicate changes within the current revision . This allows for easier review so the user can identify areas that havebeen modified.

AP GENERAL POLICIES
Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Confidentiality

AP incidents and cases contain sensitive material that must be treated as confidential. In addition, all AP team members must adhere to the following rules regarding confidentiality:
1. All information regarding investigations is considered confidential and shall not be discussed with persons not involved with the investigation.

2. Information received from law enforcement is considered confidential and may not be discussed with persons not involved with the investigation.

3. Information received from background screening, drug screening, previous employers, proprietary systems, team members’ files and other similar information is considered confidential and is not to be discussed with any persons not involved in the investigation.

Requests for this information by law enforcement shall be referred to the manager or District Assets Protection Leader (DAPTL)/Distribution Group Assets Protection Leader(Distribution GAPTL).

B. Information Security

AP team members are required to ensure the security of Target’s confidential information by using that information appropriately and safeguarding it. All Information that Target creates, stores, transmits, or uses in conducting its business is the exclusive property of Target.

1. Computers/Laptops/PDAs/Treos – Target computers contain sensitive information and steps must be taken to ensure the protection of that information at all times.
a. Passwords – Never share passwords with other people, your password shall be
used for your access only.
b. Computer Access – Ensure access to your computer is locked when leaving it
unattended.
c. Do not leave laptops/PDAs and Treos in exposed areas when traveling
(examples:In a car, hotel room, in checked luggage, etc.).
Target’s Information Security Policy can be found online at TGT under the Company & Culture tab.

C. Knowledge of Wrongdoing

AP team members will immediately bring to the attention of the appropriate Target team member (supervisor, next level supervisor, Human Resources, Integrity Hotline, etc.) knowledge of any:

1. Theft of any Target assets.
2. Falsification of Apprehension/Recovery reports.
3. Deviation from approved apprehension procedures.
4. Failure to report a Non-Productive Incident (NPI).
5. Detrimental conduct in violation of company polices, including but not limited to:
a. Possession or use of alcohol on company property.
b. Possession or use of a controlled substance on company property.
c. Possession or use of a weapon on company property.
6. Harassment.

D. Crimes Against Property/Persons

AP members must report any crimes against person and crimes against property occurring on Target property.

NOTE: This Directive does NOT apply to merchandise vadalism cases. Loss to Target property (including merchandise) is reportable via the Property Loss Program.
1. Documentation – The following documentation shall be required following any crime against a person or property:
a. Enter all cases into Common Incident Reporting System (CIRS) within 24 hours
of the incident, documenting the type of incident, parties involved and any actions taken by AP and/or Target.
b. Obtain witness statements from all team members who were witness to the incident.
c. Request copies of any police/mall security reports and retain in the case file.
d. Complete a post Serious Incident Report/NPI Follow-up Report when requested.
Return one copy to HQ and retain a second copy in the case file.
2. Notification
a. Notify the DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL of all crimes against persons and any
recurring crimes against property (i.e. patterns of car theft/vandalism).
b. Notify the STL in all cases of property loss. It shall be the STL’s responsibility to ensure the appropriate Property Loss Reports are completed.
c. Notify the Guest Reporting Center.
d. Call Alert One (see Emergency Procedures Flip chart).
E. Minimum Age for AP Team Members

All AP team members must be at least 18 years of age at the time they are hired.

F. Conflict of Interest

Target AP team members may have full or part-time employment elsewhere, unless that employment would result in a conflict of interest as defined by Target’s Business Ethics – Code of Conduct and/or any additional items listed in this section.

AP team members shall be aware of the contents of the Business Conduct Guide and the provisions of the Guide with respect to Conflict of Interest, including Target’s policy on vendor gifts and other potential conflicts.

1. Existing Conflict
a. A Conflict of Interest exists when one (1) or more of the following apply:
1. An AP team member is employed by another business that competes
with Target or in a security position with another retailer that involves
apprehending shoplifters or dishonest team members
2. An AP team member’s other employment interferes with the ability to
perform essential functions of the job at Target.
3. An AP team member’s other employment conflicts with scheduling or court
commitments.
4. An AP team member’s other employment is a paid, sworn law enforcement
position where a team member is employed by a government entity (sheriff,
deputy sheriff, peace officer, etc.) in any community (due to the nature of
the work responsibilities).
5. An AP team member’s other employment is with a company with which
Target does business, if interaction with Target would be required or could
occur.
2. AP Team Members working in Non-AP Roles – Due to the unique responsibilities
associated with Assets Protection, AP team members are NOT permitted to work in
Non-AP positions within the same store.

NOTE: AP team members may work additional hours in a Non-AP position at an alternate store or Distribution Center (DC).

G. Court Testimony Payments

1. In some jurisdictions, AP team members may receive a fee from the court for appearing as a witness on behalf of the State, County or City for cases stemming from or related to their employment as Target team members.
2. Any witness fee checks shall be turned over to the Executive Team Leader – Assets
Protection (ETL-AP) or Assets Protection Group Leader (APGL) for deposit into the
appropriate account used to off-set business expenses. The DAPTL or Distribution
GAPTL shall provide the ETL-AP/APGL with the appropriate account information.
3. The ETL-AP shall partner with HR regarding payroll related questions for team
members and former team members testifying on behalf of Target.
H. Team Member Package/Locker Checks

Target reserves the right to monitor or inspect work areas or items that team members bring to work, like coats, purses, backpacks, bags or packages. Target also reserves the right to monitor or conduct inspections of work areas and/or personal property at any time.

This section outlines procedures for conducting team member package/locker checks.

1. Team member package/locker checks shall be conducted by an AP team member,
the Leader on Duty or contracted guards (at DCs).
2. Each store/DC shall have a designated location for team members and partner business team members to secure packages while the team members are working.
3. Package checks of team members/partner business team members shall be performed
at the door as the team member exits after their scheduled shift.
4. A witness (example Leader on Duty, another AP team member, etc.) must be present
when conducting team member package/locker checks.
5. All vendor packages shall be checked at the service desk.
6. Team members shall not be allowed to keep any purchases or personal packages in
their work area or adjacent stockroom.
7. All team members/partner business team members must have the original sales receipt in the package/shopping bag.

APPREHENSION GUIDELINES
Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Purpose
This section lists the steps that MUST be followed in order for an AP team member to make a shoplifting apprehension. All steps must be observed, unless otherwise noted, and a detailed description of each step documented in the CIRS case narrative.
B. Certification
Only certified AP team members are authorized to apprehend or assist in the apprehension of shoplifters. Certification is received upon the completion of the following AP Academy courses:

1. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention R – must be completed within 30 days of hire date.
2. Position’s Basic Training Courses
3. External Apprehension Certification
C. Five Steps for Apprehension
Certified AP team members must observe all five steps prior to making a shoplifter apprehension.

NOTE: If local law enforcement takes independent action and makes an apprehension before all five steps are met, the details must be documented in the CIRS report.

1. Initiation of Observation – The subject must enter the store/area without possession of Target merchandise.
2. Selection – The subject must be observed selecting Target merchandise from the display location.
3. Concealment – The subject must be observed concealing the merchandise, or the AP team member must have NO reasonable doubt based on observations that the merchandise has been concealed by the subject.
NOTE: If the merchandise is not actually concealed, it must be exposed as the subject exits or attempts to exit the store.
4. Maintain Observation – The AP team member must maintain sufficient surveillance of the subject in order to know the location of the merchandise and ensure the subject does not discard the merchandise. NOTE: A Productive Merchandise Recovery (PMR) shall be attempted if surveillance is broken for any reason, or the AP team member can not maintain sufficient surveillance. (See PMR Directive).
5. Failure to Pay for Merchandise/Exiting the Store -AP team member(s) must observe the subject attempt to exit the store without paying for the merchandise.
NOTE: Some jurisdictions allow variances from the exiting requirement to allow apprehensions of concealed merchandise before an individual reaches the building’s exit. In these cases, the requirements must be documented and approved by the Director or Vice President of Assets Protection using the “Variance from Exiting Form” (found on the AP Zone).

SAFENESS – SUBJECT WITH A WEAPONRevision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose

The safety of Target team members and guests is our highest priority. Exercising appropriate caution in the process of making an apprehension is critical.

B. Subject with a Weapon

1. Weapon – A weapon is defined as any object that could potentially be used against a team member or guest. Weapons include, but are not limited to, box cutters, knives,
scissors, screw drivers, hand guns, stun guns, chemical agents and clubs.
2. If a weapon is used or displayed, or if any AP team member has reason to believe a
subject is in possession of a weapon during any of the five apprehension steps:
a. Back away and do not attempt to make an apprehension.

WARNING: Do not put another team member at risk by requesting the subject be “Guest Serviced”.

CAUTION: If subject is observed cutting merchandise with an unknown object, treat that object as a weapon and follow steps listed in 2. above.

b. Contact law enforcement and advise:
1. Your name and title,
2. Your phone number,
3. Store location / address,
4. Description and location of the subject, and
5. Type of weapon being used by the subject.
NOTE: If law enforcement cannot respond, allow the subject to leave the store and document the subject’s description,subject’s vehicle description and any merchandise taken from the store, and document the case in CIRS as a Known Theft Report (KTR).
c. Return to the AP office and maintain surveillance of the subject via Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV).
d. Document the case in CIRS using the steps outlined in the Documentation
section:
1. If law enforcement makes an apprehension, document the case as a merchandise theft.
2. If law enforcement is not available, allow the subject to leave and document the case in CIRS as a KTR.
3. If you are confronted or threatened by a subject armed with a weapon:
a. Immediately attempt to disengage from the subject.
b. Allow the subject to exit the store.
c. If necessary, use the verbal de-escalation skills taught in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention R training.
d. Contact law enforcement, your DAPTL and Alert One
1. Any incident that results in a serious injury to a team member, guest or
detained subject must be communicated to Alert One immediately and
reported electronically by the LOD.
e. Document the case appropriately in CIRS (threat or assault) using the steps
outlined in the Documentation section.

NOTE: Following any altercation, the AP team member(s) involved shall review the occurrence with their supervisor and the ETL-HR for safeness and procedural compliance and to determine if any further training is required.

C. Use of Weapons, Chemicals or Body Armor by a Team Member

1. Weapons – AP team members are prohibited from possessing or using any type of
weapon while on company property.
a. Team members are prohibited from using any type of AP/Target equipment (radio, handcuffs, etc.) as a weapon.
b. Team members are prohibited from possessing or using saps, nightsticks,
billy clubs, blue jacks or other similar devices on company property, which
includes the parking lot, at any time, whether on or off duty.
2. Chemicals – AP team members are prohibited form possessing or using chemical
protection devices, other than for personal protection to and from work. (Examples: Mace, pepper spray. etc.)
NOTE: All chemical protection devices must be secured in a Non-Assets Protection area during the team member’s work shift.
3. Body Armor – AP team members are prohibited from wearing bulletproof vests or other body armor equipment while on duty.

NOTE: Contracted guard services working on company premises may carry defensive weapons or a firearm only as authorized by the Director/Vice President of Assets Protection.

SAFENESS – REASONABLE FORCE / PHYSICAL ALTERCATIONSRevision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Reasonable Force

1. Reasonable Force is defined as the least amount of physical force necessary to make an apprehension, while ensuring the safety of bystanders and yourself. When making an apprehension, Reasonable Force may be used to protect AP / Target team members and guests (bystanders).
2. If an AP team member believes a subject poses a physical threat, handcuffing guidelines (outlined in the Handcuff Directive) shall be followed and law enforcement contacted immediately.

B. Physical Altercation

If an altercation occurs:
1. Immediately attempt to disengage from the subject.
2. Allow the subject to exit the store.
3. If necessary use Nonviolent Crisis Intervention R training.
4. Contact law enforcement and Alert One.
a. Any incident that results in a serious injury to a team member, guest or detained subject must be communicated to Alert One immediately and a Guest Service Report filed.
5. Communicate the incident to the Store Team Leader (STL) and/or Leader on Duty, your DAPTL and HR as soon as possible.
6. Document the case appropriately in CIRS (threat or assault) using the steps outlined in the Documentation section.

NOTE: Following any altercation, the AP team member(s) involved shall review the occurrence with their supervisor and the ETL-HR for safeness and procedural compliance and to determine if any further training is required.

SURVEILLANCE
Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006A. General Guidelines
1. Surveillance conducted by AP team members of any individual shall be based only on the actions and behaviors of the individual.
2. Surveillance shall not be based on individual characteristics such as age, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, religion, etc.
B. Certification
Only certified AP team members are authorized to conduct physical and/or CCTV surveillance. Certification is received upon the completion of the CCTV training outlined in the AP Academy Basic Training.
C. Surveillance Equipment
Surveillance equipment is defined as any audio or video equipment that assists in the monitoring and/or recording of an individual’s actions or words.
1. Surveillance equipment is the property of Target and shall ONLY be used by AP team members for approved company use. Improper use of equipment (example: using cameras to follow guests or team members for non-AP reasons) is prohibited, any AP team member caught using surveillance equipment in an inappropriate manner is subject to applicable coaching and corrective action.
2. Requests to use surveillance equipment for business purposes other than AP-related investigations must be approved by the DAPTL / Distribution GAPTL.
3. The store ETL-AP/APGL is responsible for all surveillance equipment including the proper use, location and maintenance of all equipment.
4. Video Footage – All video footage captured in by AP surveillance equipment is property of Target and shall only be used for evidentiary purposes. Any misuse, misrepresentation or manipulation of video footage by any team member is subject to applicable coaching and corrective action.

NOTE: AP surveillance is confidential and access to view the video shall only be granted to individuals with proper approval. AP team members shall partner with DAPTL (external cases) and DAPTL and HR (internal cases) prior to allowing anyone other than AP team members working on the investigation or law enforcement to view AP video.
a. Old videotapes that are no longer usable shall be destroyed by cutting the tape and removing the ribbon.
5. Public View Monitors
a. Recording of all Public View (and Exit View where applicable) monitors is required 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for digital and non-digital stores.
b. Public/Exit View images shall be retained for a minimum of 31 days for all stores.
6. Fitting Rooms / Restrooms – Target does not allow the use of surveillance equipment in or over fitting rooms or restrooms, or allow surveillance equipment to be positioned in such a way to provide the opportunity to monitor fitting rooms or restrooms.
7. Executive’s / Supervisor’s Office – Audio or video equipment may not be placed in or over an executive’s or supervisor’s office without prior approval from the Director / Vice President of Assets Protection and HR.
8. Tape Recorders – Tape recorders and other listening devices shall not be used by store based AP team members. Recorders may be used by Investigations team members, procedures are outlined in the Investigations Directives.
D. Critical vs. Non-Critical Equipment
AP surveillance equipment is divided into two categories, critical and non-critical. The ETL-AP/APGL shall be responsible for ensuring all equipment is properly maintained and repaired according to the requirements/time lines listed below:

1. Critical Equipment is defined as devices which impact safeness strategies.
a. Critical equipment includes:
1. Exterior cameras, including Pan, Tilt and Zoom (PTZ) and fixed cameras used for parking lot surveillance.
2. Entrance/exit cameras, including trucker’s door, team member entrance (where applicable) and front entrance public view monitors.
3. Other public view monitors including fitting rooms, guest service and where applicable Garden Centers.
4. AP Booking room camera, Cash Office camera, Front Lane and Guest Service Desk camera.
b. Critical equipment must be repaired within 48 hours of the reported breakdown.
c. Any breakdown of critical equipment must be reported to the DAPTL immediately.
2. Non-Critical equipment is defined as all other AP surveillance equipment.
a. Non-critical equipment must be repaired within 72 hours of the reported breakdown.
3. The DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL must be notified immediately if timing for repairs of critical or non-critical equipment exceed the time limits listed above.
E. Off-site Surveillance AP stores team members are not authorized to conduct off-site (outside of Target property) surveillance. Off-site surveillance may only be conducted by a certified Investigations team member, pursuant to Investigations Directives.

PRODUCTIVE MERCHANDISE RECOVERIES
(PMRS) Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
In situations where not all five apprehension steps can be observed, and it is safe to do so, the AP team member(s) shall attempt a Productive Merchandise Recovery.

If the AP team member is able to recover the merchandise, the incident shall be documented in CIRS as a PMR – Productive Merchandise Recovery. If the AP team member is unable to recover the merchandise, the incident shall be documented in CIRS as a KTR – Known Theft Report.

WARNING: A PMR shall not be attempted if the subject is in possession, or believed to be in possession, of a weapon. In these cases the AP team member shall ensure the subject is captured on video and shall attempt to get vehicle information (make, model, license plate number) as the subject exits the store.

1. During a PMR an AP team member may:
a. Contact another non-AP team member, wearing red and khaki, to initiate guest service without reveal the reason for the request.
b. Make themselves visible to the guest as a deterrent.
c. Contact a Sales team member or research in store registers to determine if an item was purchased.
d. Ask an uniformed AP team member (TPS or ETL-AP) to stand by the exit doors to act as a deterrent.
2. During a PMR an AP team member may NOT:
a. Initiate a PMR, ask another team member to initiate a PMR or ask a non-AP team member to guest service the subject if they believe the subject is in possession of a weapon.
b. Touch an individual or anything they are carrying.
c. Ask for merchandise or make accusations of theft of merchandise.
d. Ask another team member to accuse, remove merchandise or make inappropriate gestures to the individual.
3. If the guest initiates interaction with an AP team member:
a. Verbally identify yourself as Assets Protection, but do not show identification.
b. If the guest pursues the conversation, refer the guest to store management for resolution.
4. All PMRs shall be entered into CIRS using the steps outlined in the Documentation section.

TARGET PROTECTION SPECIALIST (TPS)
MERCHANDISE RECOVERIESRevision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
Uniformed TPS team members may conduct receipt checks and EAS responses at Target store exits when a guest is departing the store with high dollar / high theft exposed merchandise (receipt checks) or when an EAS alarm sounds as the guest exits the building.
B. During a TPS Merchandise Receipt Check
1. The Uniformed TPS may:
a. Check receipts for high dollar / high theft exposed merchandise.
2. The Uniformed TPS may NOT:
a. Check bagged items to determine whether or not something has been concealed or paid for.
b. Create an EAS Alarm in order to check the purchases or bags of a guest or team member. Creating an alarm includes but is not limited to:

1. Turning the system off and back on to cause an audible signal when a guest/team member walks through the pedestals.
2. Affixing or placing a live EAS tag onto or onto a purchase by a guest/team member.
3. An AP team member walking through a pedestal with an EAS tag at the same time a guest or team member is exiting the store.
4. Any other manipulation of the EAS system to cause an alarm.

3. Whenever possible, TPS receipt checks shall take place inside the building.

4. If a guest becomes uncooperative during a receipt check:
a. Apologize and allow the guest to leave with the merchandise.
b. Get a description of the guest and vehicle and document in the CIRS report.

NOTE: TPS Merchandise Receipts checks are only to be conducted by uniformed TPS team members. APS team members may not conduct merchandise receipt checks. If a uniformed TPS is not available, the LOD, GSTL or ETL-AP shall follow the outlined procedures; other team members are not permitted to conduct receipt checks.
C. Documenting TPS Merchandise Recoveries
The following procedures shall be followed by the TPS when documenting any TPS recovery or attempted TPS recovery.

1. Each TPS Recovery must be documented in CIRS.
a. Cases shall be identified as “Other” / “TPS Merch Recovery”.
b. Note the time, date and location of the recovery (example: 11:03 am, November 27, Green exit).
c. List all merchandise recovered.
d. Do not add multiple recoveries to the same report; each TPS recovery shall be entered as a single incident with a unique CIRS case number.

NOTE: CIRS reports may be called upon if a case goes to criminal or civil trial and therefore are incident specific and shall only contain a single incident.
D. EAS Alarm Response
If an EAS alarm sounds, the uniformed TPS shall follow the procedures outlined below. If a uniformed TPS is not available, the LOD, GSTL or ETL-AP shall follow the outlined procedures; other team members are not permitted to respond to EAS alarms.

1. Guests with visible purchases:
a. Approach guest and conduct merchandise receipt check to verify purchases and deactivation of EAS tags.
1. If you find the item on the receipt, deactivate the item and allow the guest to leave.
2. If the item is not on the receipt, ask the guest if they would like to purchase the item.
3. If the guest does not have, or cannot find a receipt, ask the guest which cashier rang up their purchase and verify with the cashier. If the purchase cannot be verified, contact another AP team member for assistance.
4. Searches of a subject’s personal possessions (example: purse) for evidence (merchandise) is not allowed unless the subject initiates the search or requests an AP team member to inspect their possessions.

NOTE: If the guest becomes uncooperative, allow the guest to leave. Obtain a description of the guest and guest’s vehicle and enter it in CIRS.

2. Guest with NO visible purchases:

a. Approach guest and conduct merchandise receipt check to verify purchases and deactivation of EAS tags.
1. If the guest does not have any purchases, ask if they have an electronic key – if so ask to see it.
2. Ask if guest has merchandise from another store – if so ask if they would like it deactivated.
3. If the guest does not have merchandise or an electronic key, allow them to leave the store.
4. If guest shows you Target merchandise that has not been paid for, ask if they would like to purchase the merchandise and allow them to purchase the item(s). If the guest refuses to purchase the item, ask for the merchandise back.
5. Searches of a subject’s personal possessions (example: purse) for evidence (merchandise) is not allowed unless the subject initiates the search or requests an AP team member to inspect their possessions.

NOTE: If the guest becomes uncooperative, allow the guest to leave. Obtain a description of the guest and guest’s vehicle and enter it in CIRS.

APPREHENSIONS Revision: 01-2006
Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Purpose
This section covers directives outlining the different types of external apprehensions and the AP team member requirements for each type.
B. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Apprehensions
Certified AP team members may make shoplifting apprehensions utilizing CCTV provided each of the following guidelines are followed:

1. The five steps for apprehension have been observed and can be documented by an AP team member.
2. The incident, or any portion of the incident is captured/recorded using non-time lapsed Target CCTV with sufficient surveillance maintained by AP team member(s) to observe the five steps.
NOTE: When two or more AP team members are involved, one team member shall maintain camera surveillance while the second team member makes the apprehension on the floor. If only one AP team member is on duty and is required to discontinue camera surveillance and go to the selling floor, the AP team member can not make the apprehension because sufficient surveillance will have been lost. If appropriate, attempt a PMR.
3. All documentation steps shall be followed to preserve evidence, including retention of all applicable video.
C. Service Desk Apprehensions
Shoplifter apprehensions involving Service Desk transactions shall only be made in the following circumstances.

1. All five apprehension steps have been observed by AP team member.
2. If the subject interacts with the Service Desk, the interaction has nothing to do with the shoplifting apprehension. (Example: After the first four apprehension steps are observed, the subject approaches the Service Desk to ask a team member a question, not related to the shoplifted merchandise. Then the subject attempts to leave the store with the merchandise. AP team member apprehends as subject exits the store.)
3. Single incidents where the DAPTL is contacted for approval prior to making the apprehension. In these cases the following steps must be clearly documented in the CIRS report, in addition to standard requirements:
a. The AP team member must have public view video clearly showing the subject entering the store WITHOUT the merchandise and later approaching the Service Desk with the merchandise.
b. The time and date the DAPTL was contacted for approval.
c. All video footage of the incident including entry of store, selection and apprehension. All video must be retained with case file.
4. Incidents where a person or group of individuals have known theft activity in an area and where the DAPTL
has given prior permission to a SPECIFIC AP team member to make an apprehension. The incident must be
documented as follows:
a. The AP team member must have public view video clearly showing the subject entering the store WITHOUT the merchandise and later approaching the Service Desk with the merchandise.
b. The time and date the DAPTL was contacted for approval.
c. All video footage of the incident including entry of store, selection and apprehension. All video must be retained with case file.

NOTE: Under NO circumstances are AP team members allowed to contact Service Desk team members in order to influence the outcome of a transaction.
D. Restroom / Fitting Room Apprehensions
AP team members are not allowed to conduct surveillance or make apprehensions in restroom and/or fitting rooms.
1. AP team members are not allowed to follow subject’s into a restroom or fitting room to conduct surveillance.
2. AP team members shall not ask another team member to enter a fitting room or restroom to conduct surveillance.

E. Transactional Fraud Apprehensions

Transactional fraud is defined as “using transactional documents dishonestly to cause a loss to Target”. Transactional documents include; checks, credit cards, gift cards, merchandise vouchers and coupons.
Certified AP team members may make Transactional Fraud apprehensions only when ALL of the following conditions are met:
1. The AP team member has completed required training listed below:
a. Position’s Basic Training Courses,
b. External Apprehension Certification and
c. Transactional Fraud Apprehension Training.

2. The AP team member has verified the transactional fraud. 3. The AP team member has pre-approval to make the transactional fraud apprehension from their Group Assets Protection Team Leader (GAPTL), DAPTL or Assets Protection Investigations Team Leader. 4. The pre-approval must include specific guidelines under which the apprehension shall be made, for example; the subject’s name, description and or account number, verification of the fraud from the account holder or bank or institution issues the transactional document.

NOTE: If the AP team member does not have pre-approval but observes behaviors that indicate an individual may be engaging in transactional fraud, the AP team member must contact one of the partners listed in 3. above and give details of the transaction in order to obtain approval prior to attempting apprehension.
F. Vendor/Partner Business Team Member Apprehensions
1. A Vendor team member is defined as: “A person who delivers a product or provides a service to Target. Vendor team members typically do not wear Red and Khaki. Vendor team members do not receive Point of Sale (POS) training or have access to the POS system.” These cases are coded in CIRS as “External” cases. (Examples of Vendor team members: product representatives such as Coke or Pepsi, etc.)
2. A Partner Business team member is defined as a person who works within the four walls of a Target store/DC, but is not employed by Target. These cases are coded in CIRS as “Internal” cases. (Examples of Partner Business Team Members: Optical team members, team members working in Life Touch Studios, Minute Clinic team members, janitorial service team members, etc.)

AP team members are responsible for knowing which Partner Business team members conduct business in their buildings. When investigating a Partner Business team member, it is important to determine who employs an individual and whether Target assets, the Partner Business assets or both are involved. If there is any doubt regarding who employees an individual, contact Human Resources.

3. Vendor/Partner Business team member apprehensions shall be made using the following guidelines:
a. When the five steps for apprehension have been met:
1. The matter shall be handled like an external shoplifting incident.
2. If the vendor/partner business team member is working at a Target store/DC during non-business hours the vendor team member may be apprehended as they are exiting the store/DC at the end of their work shift.
3. The DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL shall be advised that a vendor/partner business apprehension has occurred.
b. In cases where the five steps for apprehension have not been met:
1. The DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL shall be contacted to discuss the extent of the investigation and determine the appropriate course of action.
2. The DAPT/Distribution GAPTL will decide whether or not the vendor/partner business team member shall be interviewed
to determine the scope of the theft.
NOTE: All interviews of vendor/partner business team members shall be conducted by the ETL-AP/APGL or DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL.
4. Contacting the vendor/partner business team member’s employer:
a. All contact with employer of the vendor/partner business team member shall be handled or coordinated by the DAPTL/APGL.
b. The DAPTL/APGL may contact the vendor/partner business company to inform them of the team member apprehension.
c. The DAPTL/APGL will inform the vendor/partner business that the apprehended team member is no longer permitted to
provide service to ANY Target store/DC.
NOTE: Target will not request the vendor/partner business terminate any apprehended team member; the call is to only to inform the vendor/partner business that the particular team member is not allowed to return to provide service at a Target store/DC.

NOTE:Target will not participate in any decision by the Partner Business regarding the apprehended team member’s employment.
5. When investigating a cash loss, partner with your Centralized Sales Auditor for assistance with recovery opportunities.

HANDCUFF USE Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Purpose
AP team members who have successfully completed the Handcuff training shall be provided handcuffs to be used during an apprehension when a subject becomes violent or a danger to others.

B. Handcuff Use
1. AP team members may not carry or use handcuffs unless they have successfully completed the approved Target AP handcuff training program.
2. Handcuffs shall only be used in the following situations:
a. The subject being apprehended becomes violent,
b. The subject attempts to break away from the custody of the AP team member, or
c. There is reason to believe the subject may become violent or may pose a risk to the safety of AP team members, other Target team members or guests.

3. Handcuffs shall not be applied until the AP team member(s) is able to maintain reasonable control of the subject. If the AP team member(s) can not maintain control of the subject while handcuffing, the team member shall abort the apprehension.
4. The subject’s hands shall only be handcuffed behind them, and the handcuffs shall be double locked.
5. A subject shall not be handcuffed to another person or to any object (chair, car, etc.), except for handcuff bars in AP offices that are equipped with them.
6. A handcuffed subject shall never be left unattended.
7. Once a subject is handcuffed, the handcuffs shall only be removed in the presence of a law enforcement officer.
8. Handcuffs and handcuff keys are the property of Target and shall not be taken home by team members.

NON-PRODUCTIVE INCIDENTS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Purpose
A Non-Productive Incident (NPI) is defined as an apprehension that is initiated where no Target merchandise is recovered. This section outlines the steps that must be followed after any NPI.
B. NPIs Involving an Adult
The following outlines the steps that must be taken by AP team members after a NPI occurs:
1. Release the guest – Once it is determined that a guest suspected of shoplifting does not have merchandise, the guest must be released immediately. The AP team member(s) involved shall apologize to the guest for any inconvenience, and allow the guest to leave the store. If the guest requests to speak to a manager, refer the guest to the Leader on Duty (LOD).
2. Contact the DAPTL to inform that a NPI has occurred in the store.
3. Document the incident in CIRS as a NPI – Non-Productive Incident.
4. AP team member(s) involved must write out a chronological list of events identifying:
a. The five steps of apprehension observed (as applicable).
b. An attempt to identify where the subject may have discarded the merchandise and, if merchandise can be located, investigate how the AP team member did not observe the discard.
5. Partner with the ETL-AP/DAPTL and ETL-HR on corrective action.‘
6. Retain ALL video of the event as outlined in “Documentation Steps”

NOTE: Video of NPIs shall be retained with case files for a period of 7 years.
C. NPIs Involving a Juvenile
In cases involving a juvenile, all steps in B. above shall be followed. In addition, AP team members shall use good judgement when releasing a juvenile to ensure they may safely leave the premises (example: not allowing a juvenile to leave the store unescorted if the apprehension took place during daylight hours and it has since become dark). In these cases, the AP team member may choose to contact the juvenile’s parent or another responsible party.

SEARCHES OF PERSONS, PRIVATE RESIDENCES OR MOTOR VEHICLES Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Searches of Persons
1. AP team members are not allowed to conduct physical searches of subjects. Physical searches may only be conducted by law enforcement.
2. Searches of a subject’s personal possessions (example: purse) for evidence (merchandise) is not allowed unless the subject initiates the search or requests an AP team member to inspect their possessions. CIRS narrative must be documented to indicate subject requested possessions to be searched by AP team member.
B. Searches of Private Residence or Motor Vehicles
1. AP team members will NOT participate in a search of a private residence or motor vehicle.
2. At the request of law enforcement, AP team members may provide assistance in identifying company merchandise.
a. GAPTL approval is required prior to AP team members assisting in any search assistance as outlined in B. 2. above.
b. If the assistance criteria listed above is met, the role of the AP team member is to only answer questions and/or verify Target merchandise.

PURSUIT OF SHOPLIFTERS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Purpose
Shoplifter apprehensions are to be handled in a professional manner and as discreetly as possible. Safety of guests and team members always comes first.

1. Fleeing Shoplifter
a. If a shoplifter attempts to flee after being confronted, do not give chase in any manner (running, driving, etc.).
b. Store based AP team members shall not use any vehicle to follow or pursue a subject for any reason.
c. AP team members shall not encourage, condone, suggest or ask another Target team member or anyone else to chase a fleeing shoplifter.
2. Documentation
a. If a shoplifter flees, the AP team member shall document the incident in CIRS as a Known Theft Report using the steps outlined in the Documentation section of this manual.

LAW ENFORCEMENT REFERRAL GUIDELINESRevision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. General Referral Guidelines
1. The ETL-AP shall be responsible for partnering with local law enforcement / prosecutors office annually to determine the prosecution requirements for their jurisdiction and must have a completed Prosecutor’s Questionnaire on file in the Assets Protection office. The Prosecutor’s Questionnaire shall be updated annually to ensure the most current practices are being followed and a copy of the Questionnaire shall be kept in the local AP Office.
2. AP shall refer for prosecution all individuals apprehended for retail theft when the value of the merchandise is $20.00 or greater and the case meets local prosecution requirements.

NOTE: If a case meets/exceeds the $20.00 referral guideline, but is NOT referred, the reason for non-referral must be included in the CIRS narrative. (Example: Local jurisdiction limits require merchandise in excess of $75.00 in order for prosecution.)
3. A team member witness, of the same gender of the suspected shoplifter , must be present in the room at all times during the detention.
B. Juvenile Referral Guidelines
A juvenile is typically defined as an individual who is under the age of eighteen (18).

1. Juveniles apprehended for retail theft shall be referred for prosecution under the same guidelines as adults.
2. In addition to guidelines listed in A. above, the following referral procedures also apply to juvenile cases:
a. When a juvenile is referred for prosecution, a parent/guardian or responsible adult party shall be notified of the incident after responding authorities have arrived and taken custody of the juvenile.
b. AP team members shall make at least two (2) attempts to contact the parent or responsible party. If the juvenile’s parent/guardian cannot be contacted, the juvenile shall be turned over to the police. The CIRS report shall be noted with the time/date of attempted contact, phone number(s) called, and to whom the juvenile was released.
c. If law enforcement does not respond to requests for assistance, contact your DAPTL for guidance.
d. Apprehended juveniles shall not be photographed, unless required by local jurisdiction.

NOTE: Any juvenile NOT referred to authorities must have a parent/guardian or responsible adult party contacted immediately. If the parent or responsible party cannot be contacted within one half-hour (30 minutes) and after three attempts to reach them, contact law enforcement and release the juvenile to them. Document the number of attempted contacts, contact number and to whom the juvenile was released in the CIRS narrative.

C. Team Member Referral Guidelines
In addition to the General Referral Guidelines listed in A. above, the following guidelines apply to team members apprehended for shoplifting:
1. AP team members will refer for prosecution and seek restitution for loss from all team members apprehended for committing crimes that involve Target, a Partner Business or Vendor when the case meets local prosecution requirements.
2. Recommendations to refer for prosecution shall be made by the ETL-AP/APGL. The ETL-AP/APGL will also consult with HR regarding the recommendation to refer for prosecution to determine if there are any mitigating circumstances to be considered regarding the referral.
3. The DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL must approve the recommendation to refer a team member for prosecution. The DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL approval must be documented in the HR cover letter as follows:
a. “Approved for referral”,
b. Date DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL approved referral, and
c. DAPTL’s/Distribution GAPTL’s signature.

4. The decision to terminate a team member for shoplifting shall only be made by the appropriate HR team member.

NOTE: AP Director / Vice President approval shall be required for situations where Target has filed a police report and later requests to dismiss the criminal charges filed against the team member. Specific details shall be communicated through the GAPTL.

PHOTOGRAPHING OF APPREHENDED SHOPLIFTERS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Photographing Shoplifters
1. Adult shoplifters – AP shall photograph all adult shoplifters unless prohibited by local statutes or ordinances.
2. Team Member Shoplifters – AP will not photograph any team member apprehended for shoplifting during working or non-working hours.
3. Juvenile Shoplifters – AP will not photograph any juveniles apprehended for shoplifting, unless required by local statutes or ordinances.
B. Photograph Retention
1. All photographs shall be retained in the case file.
2. Under no circumstances will any photograph of an apprehended shoplifter be displayed in open view, on any office wall or in any other manner, or removed from Target property for personal use.

TRESPASS NOTICE Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Purpose
Trespass statutes define what constitutes a trespass. State laws generally provide that remaining on private property without permission is trespassing. An individual is usually trespassing when refusing to leave our store/DC after we have asked them to leave, either orally or by trespass notice.
B. Situations Warranting a Trespass Notice
Trespass notices require the approval from the ETL-AP/APGTL or higher. The use of a trespass notice is appropriate in the following situations:
1. When a subject has been apprehended at any Target location on more than one occasion.
2. When a person apprehended is in possession of a weapon.
a. Follow procedures outline in Safeness Weapons Directive.
b. If a weapon is discovered while the subject is detained, the AP team member shall ensure the safety of all team members and guests first, and if possible, remove and secure the weapon and handcuff the subject. The AP team member shall then contact law enforcement to advise of situation involving a weapon.
CAUTION: If the subject produces a weapon in a threatening manner at any time, the AP team member(s) shall disengage and allow the subject to exit the store/DC. The AP team member shall attempt to get a description of the sub-ject’s vehicle, so long as doing it does not put anyone in danger, and enter descriptions of both the subject and the subject’s vehicle into the CIRS report.
3. When the person apprehended has vandalized property or merchandise.
4. Persons who exhibit lewd or lascivious behavior.
NOTE: If the AP team member(s) feel a trespass notice is warranted, but the incident does not meet the criteria listed above, the team member will partner with their DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL for approval prior to issuing the notice.
C. Issuing a Trespass Notice
1. Location – A trespass Notice shall apply only to the location where the subject was apprehended or the incident took place.
NOTE: A Trespass Notice can be issued for multiple locations with DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL approval. The Trespass Notice must indicate the specific store/DC locations and a specific reason for the multiple locations. The AP team member involved must document the CIRS report to indicate DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL approval and Trespass Notice locations.
2. All Trespass Notices must contain the following elements:
a. The date and time the notice was issued.
b. Name of the person to who the notice is being issued.
c. District or Region of the Target store/DC issuing the Trespass Notice
d. The specific store (or stores with DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL approval) from which the subject is being trespassed.

NOTE: AP team members are NOT authorized to ban subjects from all Target stores/DCs, or ban subjects for life. All multiple location notices must be approved by the DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL prior to issuing.

3. The completed Trespass notice shall be given to the apprehended subject and a copy of the notice retained in the case file.
4. Document the CIRS report to indicate a Trespass Notice was issued.
NOTE: A copy of a blank Trespass Notice can be found on the AP Zone, under the Forms-All tab.
D. Violation of a Trespass Notice
If an individual who has been issued a Trespass Notice violates the notice and returns to the store/DC, ask the individual to leave the property. If the individual refuses to leave, contact law enforcement for assistance and document the incident in CIRS.
E. Team Member Trespass Notices
In situations that warrant the issuance of a Trespass Notice to a team member or former team member, the following shall apply:
1. Immediately contact your DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL to inform them of the situation prior to issuing the Trespass Notice.
2. The DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL will partner with the appropriate Employee Relations / Human Resources contacts at the Regional or Headquarters level

ACCOMPLICES Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006

A. Shoplifter Accomplices
1. Target defines a shoplifter accomplice as:
a. A person who assists another in a crime of retail theft, but is not leaving the store with merchandise.
b. Someone for whom only some of the five apprehension steps have been observed.
2. AP team members may detain all active participants in a shoplifting incident only when all five apprehension steps have been observed for each participant.
3. Since a shoplifter accomplice only participated in some of the five apprehension steps they will not be detained, questioned or referred to authorities for prosecution.
NOTE: If local law enforcement takes independent action and makes an apprehension before all five steps are met, the details must be documented in the CIRS report.
B. Box Stuffing Accomplice
Box stuffing is defined as “When a person puts merchandise inside a box or in packaging of another product, he/she pays for what product should be in the box, but not the correct merchandise.”

1. AP team members may apprehend a box stuffing accomplice if:
a. The accomplice is leaving with merchandise
AND
b. The AP team member has no reasonable doubt the accomplice knows the box contains concealed merchandise (example: AP team member witnessed accomplice holding box while second subject stuffed merchandise inside, then accomplice attempted to exit with box.).
c. The case must be documented in CIRS indicating the steps observed to merit the accomplice apprehension.

C. Team Member Accomplice

1. Target defines a team member accomplice as an individual who is not a Target team member and participates in an under ringing or passing merchandise with a Target team member. A team member accomplice may be a guest, Partner Business team member or a Vendor team member.
2. Apprehension – A team member accomplice may be apprehended when probable cause exists to believe the individual is actively participating in the crime, based on the following criteria:

a. An AP team member observes the individual select the merchandise and bring it to a cashier lane.
b. The individual makes the purchase with either a check or cash, thus verifying the individual knew the amount of the purchase.
NOTE: Apprehensions of team member accomplices shall not be made on credit card purchases.
c. The items purchased have been line item voided, zero transactions total or passed outright.
d. The under ringing or merchandise passing must result in a significant difference in the purchase price to support the inference that the subject and accomplice were knowingly participating in a crime. (Example: Purchasing a DVD player for $2.50 can indicate the guest was participating in an under ringing crime.)
e. The incident must be captured on conventional or digital CCTV.

3. Apprehension Procedures

a. Apprehend the individual as they leave the store and process as an external shoplifting case.
b. Contact law enforcement immediately.
NOTE: The subject shall be apprehended only if the AP team member has enough evidence to contact law enforcement immediately and prove that the individual was involved in a crime. Do not wait to contact law enforcement while the team member is being interviewed.
c. In cash cases refund the purchase with cash.
d. In check cases, write “VOID” across the front of the check and retain the original check as evidence.
e. Retain original receipts/refund slips.

4. When the case does not meet the procedures listed in 2 & 3 above:

a. Approach the individual and identify yourself as a Target team member.
b. Politely explain to the individual that the purchase was charged at an incorrect amount.
c. If the purchase was an underring, ask the individual to re-purchase and identical item at the correct price. Obtain the duplicate item(s) for the individual and hold the original item(s) as evidence.
d. If the individual does not wish to re-purchase the item(s), refund the purchase.
e. Retain merchandise as evidence or photograph merchandise as jurisdiction allows.
f. If the individual refuses to cooperate and insists on leaving with the merchandise, allow the individual to do so. Indicate the subject and vehicle description in the CIRS report.
g. After receiving HR approval, an interview may be conducted with the team member. (See Team Member Interviews)

5. Document the case appropriately in CIRS using the steps outlined in the Documentation section.
EVIDENCE Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
Any property related to an Assets Protection case, whether Target property, non-Target property or contraband shall be treated as evidence and protected, preserved and documented as outlined in this section.
B. Evidence Documentation
1. Evidence Log – All stores/DCs must maintain an evidence log and the log shall be updated each time a piece of evidence is placed in or removed from the evidence locker. The evidence log shall contain:
a. Date and time of entry or removal of evidence,
b. The name of the team member entering or removing the evidence,
c. The reason for entry/removal of evidence, and
d. CIRS case number related to the evidence.

2. Evidence Locker – Each store shall maintain a designated evidence locker or similar lockable area for evidence retention.
3. Evidence Tag – An evidence tag must be affixed to all items obtained in the apprehension of a subject. At a minimum all evidence tags must contain:
a. AP team member’s name and initials,
b. The CIRS case number, and
c. Date of apprehension
C. Photographing Evidence
All evidence shall be photographed and the photographs properly labeled as evidence. Merchandise shall only be kept as evidence if local jurisdiction requires, any jurisdictions allow certain forms of evidence to be photographed as a method of preservation. The ETL-AP/APGL shall be responsible for partnering with local law enforcement to understand the local jurisdiction guidelines.

1. When photographing merchandise, follow these steps:
a. Take a full shot of the item, accurately depicting the color, features and any other identifying aspects of the item.
b. Take a close up photo(s) of the item depicting the price tag, labels and/or any damage to the item.
c. Label all photographs with the date, time, name of subject and CIRS case number.
d. Retain all photographs in the case file.

2. After photographing, return the merchandise to the owning department, unless local jurisdiction requires merchandise be held, in which case merchandise shall be stored in evidence locker.

D. Company Property

All recovered merchandise, any item the subject may have removed from the merchandise and discarded (packaging, price tags, vendor tags, defeated merchandise protection tags, boxes, etc.), company documents (including but not limited to POS receipts, vouchers, gift cards. gift receipts, refund documents, etc.), and recovered cash shall be treated as evidence.

1. When logging company property as evidence, the following applies:
a. Original documents are preferred; if law enforcement requires an original document, make a copy for evidentiary purposes.
b. If photocopies are used, document the location of the original document in the CIRS report (example: Original receipt retained by Minneapolis Police Officer John Smith).
c. All company documents shall be initialed and dated by an AP team member (in small writing in the corner of the document).
d. Record each item of recovered property in the “Evidence” section of the CIRS report.
e. Complete an evidence tag for any item retained by law enforcement or Assets Protection and affix to piece of evidence.
f. Log all items on the Evidence Log.

E. Non-Company Property
All Non-Company Property (evidence) recovered from a subject shall be recorded in the same manner as Company Property using the steps listed in D. above.
F. Contraband
Contraband is defined as items or goods that are illegal to possess, such as weapons, narcotics, drug paraphernalia, etc.
1. All contraband discovered by AP team members shall be recorded in the “Evidence” section of the CIRS report, marked with an Evidence Tag and turned over to law enforcement.
2. AP team members are forbidden from retaining/possessing contraband.
G. Preserving Evidence
Following an apprehension, preserve all evidence in the following manner:
1. Affix an Evidence Tag to all merchandise, non-company property and contraband recovered during the apprehension.
2. Prior to turning over any evidence to law enforcement, ensure the evidence is properly tagged and that a law enforcement officer signs for each item using their name, initials and date on the Evidence Log.
3. Store all physical evidence (merchandise, company documents, tags, etc.) in a bag or container and seal the bag/container to protect the item(s) from tampering.
4. Attach the evidence property tag to the sealed container.
5. If AP will be retaining the evidence, place the sealed bag or container in the evidence locker or similar lockable area in the AP office.
AP INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
All incidents must be properly documented by an AP team member in the Common Incident Reporting System (CIRS). All on-going investigations shall be documented in the Common Investigations Management System (CIMS); when the investigation escalates into an incident, the case information shall be moved to the CIRS system.

A case file shall also be completed for each incident and copies of the case file shall be retained in the store/DC for a period of seven (7) years and a copy of all Internal casesshall be given to the ETL-HR.
B. CIRS/CIMS Documentation
1. CIRS and CIMS files are considered part of the investigative process and may be subject to subpoena and disclosure if a case goes to trial. Cases shall be documented in a complete and professional manner.

2. Narrative – The case narrative shall be written in a clear concise format and shall include at minimum the following:
a. Five steps of apprehension – Provide a detailed, chronological order of each of the five steps, and where and when they took place. If a step is missed, and a Productive Merchandise Recovery (PMR) takes place, identify the missing step(s) and reason in the narrative. (Example – PMR conducted because APS lost sight of subject on sales floor and was unable to maintain surveillance.)
b. Detailed description of why subject was observed. (Example: “Subject entered building wearing a large winter coat and the temperature outside was 89oF,” not “Suspicious suspect entered the building”.)
c. Names of team member(s) involved – List the names of all team members and their roles within the apprehension.
d. Law Enforcement – If law enforcement is involved in an apprehension or if the subject is referred to law enforcement detail the role law enforcement played in the stop. Also, note this information in the law enforcement section of the CIRS report.
NOTE: Narrative shall be noted if law enforcement decides to make the apprehension, such as when AP has not observed all five steps of apprehension. In these cases AP team members may assist law enforcement.
e. Weapons – Indicate if a weapon is present at any time during any incident. Also indicate if the weapon was used during the incident (i.e. Razor blade used to cut open DVD package).
f. Handcuffs – If a subject is handcuffed, indicate who handcuffed the subject and why the handcuffs were applied (reference Handcuff Directive).
g. Detailed description of apprehension location – Specifically identify the location where the apprehension took place, (E.g. “Green Main Exit” not “Exit”).
h. Surveillance of the incident – Note whether CCTV, physical surveillance or both were used to observe the incident.
i. Other cases/information – Reference other CIRS/CIMS cases that led to initial observation of the subject or supporting evidence to the apprehension. Also, if AP team member was tipped by another team member or guest, and witness statements gathered after apprehension.

3. Narratives are to be treated as evidence and shall NOT contain the following::
a. Subject description (race, gender, sex, age, etc.) – The CIRS report has a section that asks for subject description and any information shall be documented here. The narrative shall NOT contain this information; it shall contain only the facts leading up to the apprehension/incident.
b. Slang terms, jargon or acronyms – Narratives may be used as evidence during criminal/civil cases. Therefore, all jargon and slang terms shall be avoided and all acronyms spelled out (i.e. Assets Protection Booking Room instead of AP Booking Room).
c. Generalizations- The narrative is a factual description of what took place, and shall not contain any opinions of the team members, generalizations about the subject or assumptions of what they may have done or intended to do.
d. Multiple cases/incidents – An individual CIRS case must be completed for each incident; cases occurring on the same shift are not to be grouped together into a single incident.
C. Case File –
A case file must be created for all apprehensions/incidents within a store/DC. The AP team member involved shall be responsible for ensuring all evidence is collected and filed properly. At a minimum the case file must contain the following:

1. A copy of the CIRS narrative and any other related CIRS/CIMS cases.
2. Photos – Any photos taken of the subject/evidence shall be kept with the case file. Photos must be labeled with the case number and date.
3. Video – Copies of video relating to AP cases/apprehension shall be retained for a period of 7 years.
a. Video shall include observation of the five apprehension steps.
NOTE: If a step is not captured on video, the CIRS report must be updated indicating why the particular step was missed. (Example: Limited camera coverage in automotive section did not allow for constant video surveillance.)
b. Video shall be transferred to a VHS or DVD/CD and properly labeled with the date and case number.
c. All other video shall be retained for a minimum of 30 days.
NOTE: Video must be retained for all AP incidents/apprehensions and kept with the case files for a period of seven (7) years. All other video shall be retained for a minimum of 30 days unless otherwise noted.
NOTE: If video is copied to a VCR tape, ensure the tab has been removed to prevent over-taping.
NOTE: If law enforcement requests a copy of the videotape, make a copy and retain the original. Original recordings shall be provided to law enforcement upon the receipt of a subpoena; in such cases ensure the store/DC retains a copy prior to turning over the original. If law enforcement insists on taking custody of the original without a subpoena, provide the original but ensure a copy is retained. Ensure your DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL is notified any time law enforcement requires a copy of evidence.

4. Witness statements – All team members involved shall be required to give a witness statement of the incident and these statements shall be retained in the case file. Any other statements gathered by AP team members shall be properly labeled (case number and date) and filed in the case file.
5. A copy of the Trespass Notice (if applicable).

NOTE: In the event of a serious incident (assaults with serious injury, death, sexual assaults, armed robbery) or any other incident receiving media attention, the ETL-AP/APGL shall partner with the DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL for further guidance regarding the scope of additional evidence to be retained in the case file.
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE CIRS CASES Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
This section outlines the authority and requirements for CIRS case approval.
B. Approval
1. AP team members are not permitted to approve cases they have initiated and entered into the CIRS reporting system.
2. All cases shall be approved by the next level AP supervisor (or higher).
3. Prior to CIRS case approval, the approver shall review the case for:
a. Complete and accurate narrative, including details of the case outlining the five apprehension steps, a chronological sequence of events from subject entering store/DC to apprehension/exit, proper spelling and limited use of acronyms.
b. Proper documentation of the case, including team members involved, law enforcement involvement, any weapons used/found, whether a subject was handcuffed, location where the incident took place, date and time of incident, etc.
c. Directive compliance.
d. Complete case file including any photos, witness statements, accompanying video, etc.
e. Ensure the case is properly coded.
NOTE: Cases not meeting above minimum standards shall be sent back for re-work. The supervisor shall work with AP team member initiating the case to ensure complete and accurate details and coach team member on deficient case details.
4. Supervisors shall review cases for approval on a daily basis.
5. Cases shall be approved or returned for re-work within 48 hours of submission.
NOTE: Details used in CIRS are considered evidence and may be called upon if a case is brought to trial. It is vital that team members complete the narrative in a timely fashion with the facts of the case. The report is designed to capture the sequence of events and must be a factual list of events. Team members must refrain from adding opinions or assumptions when documenting the case.
TICKET FRAUDRevision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
Ticket Fraud is defined as “Changing the price on merchandise with the intent of purchasing the merchandise at a reduced price.”
B. Ticket Fraud Apprehension
1. An Apprehension shall only be permitted when ALL of the following criteria have been met:
a. Written confirmation has been received that your local jurisdiction will prosecute Ticket Fraud referrals and this confirmation is on file in the store and with the DAPTL.
b. The person or group involved has known theft or Ticket Fraud activity and the known activity is documented in a CIRS narrative.
c. The AP team member has pre-approval to make the Ticket Fraud apprehension from their GAPTL, DAPTL or Investigations Team Leader.
d. All elements of the Ticket Fraud have been observed:
1. Selection of the item. 2. Placement of the new ticket on the item.
3. Purchase of the item at the incorrect price.
e. If selection, removal and placement have been observed, but an apprehension cannot be made due to other criteria not being met:

1. Handle the incident by asking the cashier to request that the price be
checked. The cashier can then inform the guest of the correct price. 2. Partner with your DAPTL or Investigations Team Leader.
3. Gather all evidence and document the incident in CIRS using the “Ticket
Fraud” classification.
FOOD CONSUMPTION / FOOD PASSING INVESTIGATIONS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
This Directive applies to all areas of food sales (Food Avenue, Starbucks, etc.) as well as any other food items available for sale in Target stores. It also applies to single or multiple incidents of food consumption or passing.
B. Handling
1. Incidents of team member food consumption and food passing shall be treated as a policy violation and referred to Human Resources for further handling. AP will NOT conduct an interview or refer for prosecution these types of incidents, however they may assist HR by providing information and supporting documentation.
2. Investigations that reveal cash theft or theft in bulk (example: a case of pop) shall be handled by AP as a theft (internal or external). AP must observe the five steps prior to apprehension.
TEAM MEMBER DISCOUNT VIOLATION INVESTIGATIONSRevision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
This Directive outlines the procedures for an investigation of a team member suspected of a violating Target’s Team Member Discount policy.
B. Investigation/Apprehension Steps
1. AP shall notify HR as soon as they become aware of a discount policy violation.
2. AP shall conduct an investigation to establish the scope of the team member’s violation.
3. If the investigation reveals other possible dishonest activity, AP shall open a team member investigation and document the investigation in CIMS.
4. If no additional information of other possible dishonest activity exists, the case shall be immediately forwarded to HR or higher level of management for handling.
TEAM MEMBER INTERVIEWS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
Team member interviews shall be conducted as a part of an internal investigation. Only AP team members who have successfully completed Target’s Assets Protection Internal Interview Certification are authorized to conduct team member interviews.

NOTE: An AP team member who has successfully completed Internal Interviewing Training and is in the process of becoming certified, may conduct a team member interview in the presence of another trained/certified AP team member.
B. Conducting a Team Member Interview
1. Prior to conducting any team member interview, supervisor approval is required.
2. Prior to conducting a team member interview, the AP team member shall partner with:
a. The appropriate HR Partner or STL.
b. The next level AP team member.
NOTE: If the HR or STL/DC Team Leader disagrees with the decision to interview the team member for dishonesty, the AP team member shall meet with the HR and/or STL/DC Team Leader to discuss their concerns. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached, the AP and H. R. team members shall contact the DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL and Human Resources Representative (HRR). Together the DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL and HRR shall make the final decision as to whether or not the team member will be interviewed.
c. The AP team member shall present a written summary of the investigation findings (HR Cover Letter) to the HR or STL/DC Team Leader.
3. Team member interviews are to be conducted in accordance with all Target internal interviewing procedures.
4. Before conducting an interview of a team member there must be evidence that the team member has participated in a dishonest activity. Team member interviews shall NOT be made solely on the basis of an implication by another team member. There must be corroborating evidence in addition to any implication and the evidence shall be presented in the written summary of the investigations findings (HR Cover Letter). Some examples of “Other” evidence:
a. Digital or standard CCTV video
b. Merchandise/hand tags
c. Product wrapping
d. System reports

TIME AND ATTENDANCE VIOLATION INVESTIGATIONS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
If an AP team member becomes aware of any time card/attendance policy violations they shall handle as follows:
1. Immediately forward all information regarding the violation the ETL-HR/Distribution HRM/HRR.
2. Do not conduct an independent investigation into the suspected time card/attendance violation.
3. If an AP team member is requested to support a time card/attendance investigation, contact the DAPTL/Distribution GAPTL or next level AP supervisor for approval.
4. If the time card/attendance violation involves an AP team member, inform the ETL-HR/Distribution HRM/HRR and contact your DATPL/Distribution GAPTL for guidance.

EXECUTIVE INVESTIGATIONS / INTERVIEWS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Investigations
1. AP team members who have knowledge or suspicion of a Target executive violating a company policy shall notify their next level AP supervisor.
2. The supervisor shall make the determination whether to investigate the executive and who shall be responsible for the investigation.
B. Interviews

1. Once the supervisor makes the decision to interview an executive, the interview shall be conducted by one of the following:
a. DAPTL, ITL or Distribution GAPTL
b. GAPTL,
c. Director of Assets Protection, or
d. Vice President of Assets Protection.

2. Prior to engaging in an interview, the interviewer must have prior approval from the GAPTL or Director/Vice President of Assets Protection and the ETL-HR/Distribution HRM/HRR.

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Definition
An undercover investigation is defined as “Placing a contract individual, law enforcement officer or team member into a non-AP store/DC position on multiple occasions for the purpose of uncovering serious security or policy violations.”
B. Approval
The Director/Vice President of Assets Protection must approve any investigation where Assets Protection proposes using an undercover investigator. This applies to any store/DC-based undercover investigation.

NOTE: Utilizing AP team member from another Target location to assist store AP related surveillance is not considered to be an undercover investigation. (Example: An ETL-AP/APGL covering vacation at an alternate location for another ETL-AP/APGL.)
PHARMACY INVESTIGATIONS Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
This Directive outlines AP policies for handling Pharmacy Investigations.
B. Investigations
1. Any proposed investigation of a Pharmacist or Pharmacy team member shall be immediately communicate to the DAPTL.
2. The DAPTL shall then discuss the investigation with the Pharmacy Supervisor, GAPTL and ETL-HR prior to any action.
C. Fraudulent Prescriptions
1. AP team members shall not make any apprehensions on fraudulent prescription cases.
2. If requested, AP team members shall support fraudulent prescription cases by gathering evidence for law enforcement (such as video footage, subject or vehicle descriptions, etc.).
3. AP team members shall become involved in fraudulent prescription cases if physical danger is imminent to team members or guests.
4. Pharmacists shall notify local law enforcement and professional boards as required.
D. Pharmacy Keys
1. Pharmacies are operated under a separate keying system. The Pharmacy shall not be opened by anyone other than a registered Pharmacist under any circumstances.
GUEST SERVICE ISSUES / GUEST INCIDENT Revision: 01-2006 Effective: 02-22-2006
A. Purpose
This section addresses the proper handling of Guest Service Issues and Guest Incident filed at the store level.
B. Guest Issues Involving AP Team Members
1. The ETL-AP shall contact the DAPTL and STL upon notification of any guest issues involving another AP team member.
2. The DAPTL and STL shall determine whether the situation is a Guest Service Issue or a Guest Incident.
C. Guest Service Issues
1. A matter shall be treated as a Guest Service Issue if all of the following apply:
a. The guest complaint relates to the manner in which the guest was treated in the store, such as a NPI or receipt check, and does not involve any claim of bodily injury of property damage,
b. The guest is not represented by an attorney and
c. The matter can be resolved with a guest service payment of $200.00 or less in gift certificates, gift cards or a check.

2. If the matter does not meet all three (3) of the criteria listed above, it must be referred to the Guest Reporting Center to be handled as a Guest Incident.
NOTE: If there is any doubt about the matter meeting any of the Guest Service criteria, contact the Guest Service Reporting Center.
D. Handling a Guest Service Issue
1. The DAPTL shall handle a Guest Service Issue as follows:
a. Partner with the Guest Reporting Center and the STL.
b. Once contacted by the guest, investigate by reviewing any CIRS reports, case files, video, witness statements, etc. regarding the particular incident.
c. Contact the guest and attempt to resolve the issue.
d. Document all actions taken and communications with all parties.
e. Determine the best method to resolve the guest service issue: written apology, guest service payment ($200.00 or less) or an understanding that Target is not at fault.
f. If the matter can be resolved as a guest service issue, contact the GAPTL and present the case.
g. When a resolution has been reached, notify the Store Team Leader (STL) and District Team Leader (DTL) of the situation and resolution type and amount (if applicable).
NOTE: Guest Service payments must be charged to the store or district account, as directed by the DAPTL.
h. If the matter is resolved on a guest service basis, no written release from the guest is necessary.
i. Document all details of the case in CIRS including any type of settlement.

2. If after discussion with the guest it does not appear the matter can be resolved as a Guest Service Issue, report the matter as a Guest Incident and contact the Guest Reporting Center.
E. Guest Incidents

1. Any matter that does not meet the three (3) criteria for a Guest Service Issue (listed in C. 1. above) must be reported to the Guest Reporting Center as a Guest Incident.
NOTE: A claim is reported using the same procedures for reporting a Guest Accident.
2. The DAPTL shall discuss all Claims with their GAPTL and the STL.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

GIFT CARD SCAM

– a 2 yr old scam

that hasn’t gone

away!

———————————————————

I read about a scam on gift cards. Seems that people are collecting and taking away quantities of these blank gift cards, making note of the numbers on the cards and returning them to the shelf.

Every few days they phone the automated toll free number and inquire about the balances. When they find one that has been purchased and has a balance they use them with online orders.

I would assume that they have the merchandise sent to some bogus name at a mail receiving service or POB and not to their home address.

Sounds like a lot of work as I would think most people buying gift cards are doing it in moderate amounts ($25-50), but you can use multiple gift cards on a single purchase.

So if you hear of a complaint that there was nothing on some poor schnooks gift card and they can prove they did purchase one, this might be the reason.

============================================

Wal-Mart Hit By

Gift Card Scam

June 10, 2004

By Connie Thompson

SEATTLE – Thieves have found a way to secretly cash out your gift card before you have a chance to go shopping.

The biggest target so far is the nation’s largest retailer: Wal-Mart.

We uncovered the problem after tips from local consumers.

Wal-Mart won’t say much. A spokesman in Arkansas characterizes it as a “small issue in some pockets of the country.”

But police are investigating, and if you use gift cards, you need to know about this.

“You think it’s safe to give someone a gift card!” said Tami Kegley, who contacted us after she and her church group chipped in for a $150 gift card at a Wal-Mart in Bonney Lake. Tami had put the purchase on her credit card.

The shopping card, as Wal-Mart calls it, was a gift for a colleague.

“She loaded up her cart and took it up there and they said there was nothing on the card,” she said.

The same thing happened to Carol Kent and her husband with a $25 card at the Wal-Mart in Puyallup.

Carol: “She said ‘I’m sorry, but there’s a zero balance on this.’ And we’re like, ‘What?!’ She ran it again and she said, ‘No, I’m sorry. It’s already been cashed out.’ “

Carol’s shopping card was purchased in Olympia, and days later, cashed out by a stranger at the Wal-Mart in Chehalis even though Carol still had the card.

“Here’s my receipt,” Carol points to the shopping card notation at the bottom which reads: “Shop card reception 0.00”

In Tami’s case, her receipt shows the $150.00 card was activated at 11:32 in the morning, then cashed out three hours later in a another state!

“At a store in California,” Tami explained. “He (the Wal-Mart employee) wasn’t sure how it was being done, but he told me it had happened several times through that same store in California.”

Wal-Mart acknowledges the scam, but for security reasons will not discuss details.

A corporate spokesman says the company, ” is working with law enforcement at the highest levels possible, to rectify the problem and catch the people responsible.”

As for making good on the stolen money?

“Well initially he told me that he really couldn’t do anything for me,” Tami Kegley says of the Wal-Mart employee she dealt with. “He said it was a corporate issue.”

But Tami persisted, and got finally got the $150.00. Carol also got her money back.

“And they said they’re working on it, and that there’s been a couple memos on it throughout Wal-Mart,” Carol said.

Wal-Mart won’t go into how this is happening, but assures us it has extra security measures in place.

One other national retailer reports an isolated incident of the same scam in Michigan and the employee involved was caught.

Wal-Mart says if you learn your card has been hit, you should have no problem getting your money as long as you have the receipt to verify the transaction. The receipts record the exact date, time and code number of the card transaction, as well as codes showing where the cards were both purchased and redeemed.

=================================
January 19, 2006

Retailers on guard

 against gift card

fraud

(Dallas Morning News, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) DALLAS _ Now that holiday gift card givers have handed out billions in plastic presents, the scam artists are as busy as Christmas elves.

Gift card fraud _ be it a simple sleight of hand or elaborate techno thievery _ is on the rise, experts say. As the use of gift cards grows, so does their attractiveness to crooks. Consumers bought an estimated $18.5 billion in gift cards this holiday season, up 6.6 percent from 2004

Retailers and restaurateurs are working with trade groups, processors and law enforcement to spot and stop the latest scams without making the system too burdensome for legitimate consumers.

“Gift card fraud is a growing concern among retailers nationwide,” said Joseph LaRocca, vice president of loss prevention for the National Retail Federation, an industry trade group.

“Gift cards are being used as mainstream currency among retailers, from fast-food restaurants to major department stores.”

In fact, restaurateurs, although later to the gift card game than their retailing cousins, represent a rapidly growing group of gift card sellers.

Major retailers continue to dominate, with a 70 percent share of gift cards purchased.

But restaurants accounted for 12 percent of gift cards purchased in 2005, more than double the 5 percent reported two years before, according to First Data Corp., which processes electronic transactions.

Since so many gift cards are given during the holidays, January and February become prime months for gift card redemption, by consumers and thieves.

Experts describe gift card fraud as a small part of the overall $31 billion in retail “shrink.” The catch-all term includes everything from employee theft to vendor fraud at retail stores, not including restaurants.

“When you look at that number, the gift card fraud losses that I’m aware of are minuscule,” LaRocca said.

He and others said they’ve not seen solid numbers that can quantify the problem.

“There isn’t a lot of good data,” said Richard Hollinger, a criminology professor at the University of Florida who produces the annual National Retail Security Survey. “Companies have private data on the extent to which they’re having a problem.”

But many of those companies, wary of tipping off thieves and scaring off customers, are secretive about their fraud losses and prevention tactics. Several restaurant companies declined to comment for this article due to security concerns.

Experts said they see the problem as significant and growing _ and the thieves as increasingly sophisticated.

“Each of the various retail companies has investigative teams that are working on this,” Hollinger said, adding that the FBI gets involved in cracking some scams.

Gift card fraud can take various forms _ and each presents challenges for the companies that get into the gift card game.

The easiest to pull off is the simple sleight of hand. The store clerk or restaurant server hands you a card that you think has value when it doesn’t, then pockets the real card.

That fraud is harder for diners at sit-down restaurants to immediately detect because the card leaves their sight.

Increasingly, Hollinger said, gift card fraud is tied to organized shoplifting. Thieves steal merchandise and bring it back for a refund, sans receipt.

Many retailers now put refunds on gift cards, which can then be marketed via online auction sites.

LaRocca calls that “e-fencing.”

That fraud affects retailers more than restaurants since consumers rarely return cheeseburgers.

But all industry segments are on the alert _ and on the offensive.

To fight back, retailers, restaurateurs and the transaction processing industry are stepping up monitoring of gift card sales and redemptions, in some cases requiring a manager’s approval for a sale.

Others create extensive databases that key in on unusual transactions or patterns involving the same person or group.

“We track things, looking for strange activity,” such as the frequency with which money is put onto a card and then taken off, said Andrew Robbins, president of Paytronix Systems Inc. in Cambridge, Mass., which helps restaurants run their gift card programs.

“We try to find the people who are doing that the most,” he said.

People are going to find a way to cheat, said Tamara Jones, vice president of business services for Plano, Texas-based Metromedia Restaurant Group, speaking at a recent restaurant technology conference.

“But the reporting is such that you can narrow it down to the server,” she said.

Concerns about thievery have not been enough to keep growing numbers of restaurateurs and retailers out of the game.

“Most often, they have a big concern up front about fraud, then when they start looking at the upside, it more than outweighs any issue about fraud,” said Adam de Malignon, sales director for Gift Card Solutions, a Salt Lake City provider of paper and electronic gift products and services.

Merchants like gift cards because they can increase sales (consumers often spend more than the card’s value), bring in first-time customers, build brand awareness and, if the customer registers the card online, serve as a marketing tool.

“I’ve seen … (wariness) delay people, but they see there’s too much money to be made,” he said.

——————————————————

Some Q & A:

GIFT CARD SCAMS?
I’ve been hearing from people about how gift cards from businesses can easily be scammed, but I just don’t see how that can be done. I mean, they’re not activated until you buy them, and then they’re just stored-value cards, right? Can you explain?

Well, I don’t know that I want to get the reputation of being an expert criminal mastermind, but I did recently read about one ingenious method by which companies like Wal-Mart, Target and The Gap are encountering problems with their gift cards.

The key is that gift cards each have a unique serial number in the magnetic strip and then the gift card management system uses a centralized computer to track outstanding balances and usage.

Without any scams involved, it works great and if you know the unique ID number of your card, you can even call up and report it stolen, without losing any of the remaining balance.

The problem arises when you realize that small handheld mag-strip scanners are inexpensive and easily acquired. Now imagine this: a criminal has one of these devices in his (or her) pocket and walks into a store that offers these plastic gift cards.

They grab a big handful of cards as if they’re a big spender, wander into a quiet corner (or a dressing room), then quickly scan each and every card to record their unique ID numbers. Then they’re done with the cards so they put them back on the display or leave them on a shelf for an unsuspecting employee to put away.
Now that afternoon you innocently traipse into the store and pick up one of these tainted cards, “charging it” with $500 for your sweetie.

That’s where the problem arises. The criminal can easily buy a gift card and charge it with $5, then reprogram the mag strip to match your card ID number (which they’d previous scanned and stored) and merrily shop until your balance goes to zero.
Now, how would they know when your card is activated and how much is left on it? Because all of these stores that offer plastic gift cards also offer a system where you can check your card balance via telephone with just the ID number. Every 4-5 days the criminal checks the balance on their stack of card IDs, and once one goes golden, they either start shopping or, worse, perhaps offer it for sale on a site like eBay.

Either way, I’m not sure that I’d be purchasing plastic gift cards for any of my friends with this sort of exploit so relatively simple. There are better and safer ways of sharing your affections.

—————————————————-

    Join Target AP Directives 2006    
 MSN Groups

===========================================================

Friday, September 15, 2006

The case below comes as close to the pending Target v Doe case as any so you might want to take a look at this when deciding if T. does in fact have a decent chance:
========================

67 F. Supp. 2d 745 (1999)
52 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1345
Ford Motor Company, Plaintiff,

v.

Robert Lane d/b/a Warner Publications, Defendant.

Case No. 99-74205

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION

September 7, 1999, Decided
September 7, 1999, Filed

DISPOSITION: Ford’s motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.

COUNSEL: For FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff: Ernie L. Brooks, Robert C. Tuttle, Frank
A. Angileri, Brooks & Kushman, Southfield, MI.

JUDGES: Nancy G. Edmunds, U.S. District Judge.

OPINION BY: Nancy G. Edmunds

OPINION: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Thirty years ago, on September 2, 1969, computer scientists at UCLA introduced a
system which allowed one computer to speak to another. The birth of the Internet,
inauspicious at the time, presaged a revolution in worldwide communications. In the ealm of law, we are only beginning to grapple with the impact of the communications revolution, and this case represents just one part of one skirmish — a clash between our commitment to the freedom of speech and the press, and our dedication to the protection of commercial innovation and intellectual property. In this case, the battle is won by the First Amendment.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. n1
Although Defendant has stipulated to certain provisions of the injunction, including a prohibition on the infringing publication of copyrighted materials, Defendant challenges the provision which would enjoin him from using, copying, or disclosing any internal document of Ford Motor Company (including information contained therein).
Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Defendant from using Ford’s logo on his website. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that, although Ford has presented substantial evidence to support its claim that Lane violated the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, an injunction restraining Defendant’s publication of Ford’s trade secrets would constitute an invalid prior restraint of free speech in violation of the First Amendment. Thus, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant’s use, copying, or disclosing of Plaintiffs internal documents is DENIED.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

n1 A Temporary Restraining Order was issued by the presiding judge, in this Court’s
absence, on August 25, 1999.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -End Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I. Facts

Plaintiff, Ford Motor Company, is an internationally-known automobile manufacturer. Ford closely guards its strategic, marketing, and product development plans. These plans are “trade secrets,” which include program structures and vehicle cycle plans, engineering data, profitability and pricing data, and blueprints for manufacturing vehicles and their parts. Also, Ford owns numerous copyrights in material “made for hire” under the Copyright Act. In addition, Ford owns over 100 trademark registrations for the name “FORD,” including the widely recognized stylized version of the name “FORD” (cursive font) and the “FORD OVAL” mark (cursive font inside a blue oval). The FORD mark has been in use since 1895.

Defendant, Robert Lane, is a student. Doing business as Warner Publications, he
publishes a website with the domain name “blueovalnews.com,” formerly
“fordworldnews.com.” The website publishes information about Ford and its products on the Internet, and has featured the Ford blue oval mark. Affidavit of Nancy Oatley, Ex. A.
Some time prior to the events at issue in this case, Lane applied for and received
authorization to access Ford’s press release website. Transcript of Aug. 30, 1999 hearing at 36 [hereinafter cited as “Tr. at ].

In the fall of 1998, Ford became aware of Lane’s website, which then operated
under the domain name fordworldnews.com. Ford objected to Lane’s use of the name
“Ford” as part of the domain name and blocked Lane’s access to Ford’s press release
website. In response, Lane wrote Ford a letter, dated October 30, 1998, in which Lane advised Ford that he possessed several “sensitive” photographs, including one of the upcoming Ford Thunderbird, which purportedly were provided to Lane by one of Ford’s employees. Affidavit of Donald Aiken, Ex. B. The photos allegedly showed pictures of Ford products that were confidential and had not been released to the public. In a letter dated November 3, 1998, Lane threatened to publish materials on his website that Ford would find “disturbing.” Id., Ex C. In both letters, Lane threatened to encourage Ford employees to disclose confidential information. Id., Ex B & C. Ford met with Lane and requested that Lane obtain Ford’s approval prior to posting any Ford documents on the Internet. Lane agreed to do so. Tr. at 20.

Lane later changed his mind. On July 13, 1998, Lane posted an article on his website discussing and quoting from confidential documents that Lane received from an anonymous source relating to quality issues concerning the Ford Mustang Cobra engine.
Tr. at 39-41, Defendant’s Ex. 2. On July 27, 1999, Lane published information from
another document that Lane received from an anonymous source, a document entitled
“Powertrain Council Strategy & Focus.” This was an internal Ford memo containing Ford’s strategies relating to fuel economy, vehicle emissions through the year 2010, and powertrain technology advances. See Tr. at 43. Lane also published a Ford engineering blueprint on his site, and stated that he planned to offer other blueprints for sale.
Affidavit of Nancy Oatley, Ex. J. In addition, Lane stated that he possessed other
confidential Ford documents. When Ford advised Lane that the Company intended to file a lawsuit and to seek an injunction against him, Lane responded by posting
approximately forty Ford documents online, including materials with high competitive sensitivity. Ford’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Ex. A.

Lane testified that he did not know the identity of anyone who provided him with the confidential Ford information that he wrote about and posted verbatim on his website.
n2 These anonymous sources, likely former and current Ford employees, gave Ford
documents to Lane by delivering them to his house or to his truck or by using the U.S. mail. Tr. at 47. Lane was aware of the confidential nature of the Ford documents that he published. Tr. at 17-20 & 57-58; Affidavit of Daniel Stock. Ford representatives informed Lane that Ford employees are bound by a confidentiality agreement. n3 Tr. at 18-19.
Lane testified that, with respect to some of the documents, he knew that the Ford
employees who gave them to him were breaching their duty to Ford. Tr. at 18. Further, many of the documents were marked “confidential,” “property of Ford,” “proprietary,” or “copyright protected.” Tr. at 17; Affidavit of Richard Baker (power train document marked “confidential”). In addition, Lane acknowledged the confidential nature of the Ford documents when he wrote on his website, “Ford must take steps to make sure that from the design state until the time of market — their products undergo the utmost of secrecy. The whole reason behind all of this secrecy? To maintain a competitive advantage.” Affidavit of Nancy Oatley, Ex. L.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

n2 Lane also received confidential information which was distributed at a meeting of the Ford Team Mustang on June 18, 1999. Lane testified that he was invited to the meeting by a member of the Southeast Michigan Mustang Owner’s Association, an organization composed of Mustang vehicle owners that is not affiliated with Ford. Lane wrote on his website that he “crashed” the meeting. In any event, it is undisputed that no one from Ford invited Lane to attend the Team Mustang meeting. Lane published the confidential agenda that he obtained from the Ford Team Mustang meeting. Affidavit of Nancy Oatley, Ex. H.

n3 The standard employment agreement signed by Ford employees provides, “I recognize and agree that papers, records and plans generated by me or others for my employer are my employer’s property and I am not to make any unauthorized disclosure or retain copies of them.” Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Ex. 2. Ford employees are also bound by Ford Directive C-I 10 which provides:

Ford develops and acquires substantial amounts of information and makes that
information available to its employees for use in their work. This information, which may be embodied in documents, electronic data or other forms, is a valuable asset and belongs to Ford Unauthorized disclosure of Ford’s
information can damage Ford’s competitive position and reputation. In no case
should an employee make such unauthorized disclosure, use it for their
personal benefit, or keep it beyond their term of employment without express
permission.

Id., Ex. 1. Ford’s Standards of Corporate Conduct manual also states, “Every employee is obligated to maintain the confidentiality of Ford’s business information. This obligation survives even after your employment with Ford ends… .” Id., Ex 3.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -End Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – –

Because of Lane’s publishing activities, on August 25, 1999, Ford Motor Company filed a Complaint and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against him. The Complaint alleges copyright infringement, statutory conversion, intentional interference with contractual relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, misappropriation, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Ford alleges that Lane posted copyrighted material, and that Lane’s use of the Ford logo gives the impression that Ford sponsors or authorizes Lane’s website. Ford also alleges that Lane solicited and received trade secrets that were misappropriated; that is, Ford employees gave the trade secrets to Lane in breach of their confidentiality agreements with Ford.

On August 25, 1999, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, which provides as
follows:

Robert Lane . . . [is] enjoined and ordered as follows:

A. Defendant is restrained from destroying, despoiling or electronically deleting or erasing documents in his possession originated by or for Ford Motor
Company.

B. Defendant is ordered to file with the Court, and serve upon Ford Motor
Company, within ten (10) days, a sworn statement (1) identifying [*9] with
particularity all documents within his possession, custody or control which were originated by or for Ford Motor Company, (2) the source (by name or
description) of each document, and (3) provide details as to how defendant
Robert Lane acquired each document.

C. Defendant is restrained from (1) using, copying or disclosing any internal
document of Ford Motor Company (including the information contained therein),
(2) committing any acts of infringement of Ford Motor Company’s copyrights,
including unpublished works known by defendant Robert Lane to have been
prepared by a Ford Motor Company employee within the scope of his or her
employment, or specially ordered or commissioned by Ford Motor Company, if
not an employee, (3) interfering with Ford’s contractual relationship with its
employees by soliciting Ford employees to provide Ford trade secrets or other
confidential information.

(emphasis added). The Court deleted from Ford’s proposed temporary restraining order language restraining Lane from “using any of Ford Motor Company’s trademarks (“Ford,” the “Ford Oval” mark, the “Blue Oval” design mark, and the “Blue Oval” word mark) in a manner likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the Ford Motor Company’s affiliation, connection, or association with defendant Robert Lane.” The Court also ordered the Defendant to show cause why the Temporary Restraining Order should not be entered as a preliminary injunction. Ford subsequently filed a motion seeking such relief.

Lane filed a response to the order to show cause and to Ford’s motion for preliminary injunction. In the response, Lane agreed to the entry of the preliminary injunction in the same form as the temporary restraining order, except with respect to section C1, highlighted above.

II. Standard for Preliminary Injunction

The availability of injunctive relief is a procedural question that is governed by federal law. Southern Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924 F.2d 98 (6th Cir. 1991). The Sixth Circuit has held that a court generally must consider four factors in deciding whether to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction:

(1) whether the movant has shown a strong or substantial likelihood of success
on the merits;

(2) whether the movant has demonstrated irreparable injury;

(3) whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial
[*11] harm to others; and

(4) whether the public interest is served by the issuance of an injunction.

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame v. Gentile Productions, 134 F.3d 749, 753 (6th Cir. 1998); see
also Parker v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 879 F.2d 1362, 1367 (6th Cir. 1989). In cases involving prior restraint of pure speech, however, the Court is directed to consider
whether publication “threaten[s] an interest more fundamental than the First
Amendment itself and to forego the prerequisites from the realm of “everyday resolution of civil disputes governed by the Federal Rules.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust
Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996). Only if a plaintiff can meet this substantially
higher standard can a court issue an injunction prohibiting publication of pure speech. Id.

III. Analysis

A. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and the Prior Restraint Doctrine

Our legislatures have passed trade secret laws to encourage both business ethics and
innovation. Such laws enable businesses to enter into good faith transactions, form
stable relationships, and share confidential information, [*12] which in turn assists in
product development. Also, trade secret laws encourage research and development by
supplementing the patent system and supporting innovators who seek to retain the
value of their discoveries. Further, trade secret laws punish industrial espionage and
deny competitors an advantage they have obtained by unfair means. See Kewanee Oil
Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 481-82, 40 L. Ed. 2d 315, 94 S. Ct. 1879 (1974).

Count IV of Ford’s Complaint alleges that Lane violated the Michigan Uniform Trade
Secrets Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1901-1910 (the “Act”). The Act provides that
actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets n4 may be enjoined. Id. §
445.1903(1). Section 445.1902(b) of the Act defines “misappropriation” as:

(i) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has
reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means, or

(ii) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied
consent by a person who did I or more of the following:

(A) Used improper means n5 to acquire knowledge of the trade
secret.

(B) At the time of disclosure [*13] or use, knew or had reason to
know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was derived from
or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it,
acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its
secrecy or limit its use, or derived from or through a person who owed
a duty to the person to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.

(C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had
reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it
had been acquired by accident or mistake.

Id. § 445.1902(b) (emphasis added). Ford alleges that Lane violated section
1902(b)(ii)(A) & (B) because at the time Lane published Ford’s trade secrets he used
improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret, or he knew or had reason to
know that his knowledge of the trade secret was derived from or through a person who
had utilized improper means to acquire it, acquired it under circumstances giving rise to
a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use, or it derived from or through a person who
owed a duty to the person to maintain its secrecy or limit its use. For example, under
the Act Lane misappropriated trade secrets if, when he published the trade
secrets, he had reason to know that the employees who provided him with the trade
secrets were in breach of their duty to Ford not to disclose the information.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

n4 The Act defines “trade secret” to mean “information, including a formula, pattern,
compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that is both of the
following: (i) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being
generally known to and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other
persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. (ii) Is the subject of
efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Mich.
Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1902(d).

n5 The Act defines “improper means” to include “theft, bribery, misrepresentation,
breach, or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy or espionage through
electronic or other means.” MCLA § 445.1902(a).

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -End Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Although Ford has presented evidence to establish that Lane is likely to have
violated the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Act’s authorization of an injunction
violates the prior restraint doctrine and the First Amendment as applied under these
circumstances. n6

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

n6 The Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act is not unconstitutional on its face, as an
injunction may issue against one who plans to reveal a trade secret in violation of an
employment contract or in breach of a fiduciary duty. Use of trade secrets in violation of
a confidentiality agreement or in breach of a fiduciary duty is not protected by the First
Amendment. Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81, 94 (Minn.
1979); American Motors Corp. v. Huffstutler, 61 Ohio St. 3d 343, 575 N.E.2d 116, 120
(Ohio 1991). See Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 62 L. Ed. 2d 704, 100 S. Ct. 763
(1980) (where former CIA agent was bound by confidentiality agreement, Court affirmed
injunction against agent’s publication of nonclassified material without prior CIA
approval and imposed constructive trust on proceeds derived from publication); Cohen v.
Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 115 L. Ed. 2d 586, 111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991) (First
Amendment bar on punishment of speech did not prohibit confidential source from
recovering damages for publisher’s breach of confidentiality agreement in violation of law
regarding promissory estoppel). Note also that the Act permits monetary recovery. Mich.
Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1904.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -End Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press by providing,
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . . “
n7 The First Amendment applies to speech on the Internet. Reno v. American Civil
Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997). The primary
purpose of the guarantee of freedom of the press is to prevent prior restraints on
publication. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 713, 75 L. Ed. 1357, 51 S. Ct. 625 (1931).
Even a temporary restraint on pure speech is improper absent the “most compelling
circumstances.” In the Matter of Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342, 1351 (1st Cir.
1986).

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

n7 The First Amendment applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. Near v.
Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707, 75 L. Ed. 1357, 51 S. Ct. 625 (1931).

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -End Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

In the seminal case on prior restraints, Near v. Minnesota, the defendant was the
publisher of “The Saturday Press,” a newspaper containing anti-semitic articles
which were critical of local officials. Applying a state statute which authorized an
injunction of “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory” publications, the district court
issued a permanent injunction against the defendant. The state supreme court affirmed
the injunction, and the publisher appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court
reversed, finding that the state statute violated freedom of the press because it was the
“essence of censorship.” 283 U.S. at 713. The Near Court explained that prior restraints
may be issued only in rare and extraordinary circumstances, such as when necessary to
prevent the publication of troop movements during time of war, to prevent the
publication of obscene material, and to prevent the overthrow of the government.
Id. at 716.
Although the prohibition against prior restraints is by no means absolute, the
gagging of publication has been considered acceptable only in “exceptional
cases.” Even where questions of allegedly urgent national security, or
competing constitutional interests, are concerned, we have imposed this “most
extraordinary remedy” only where the evil that would result from the
reportage is both great and certain and cannot be militated by less intrusive
measures.

CBS v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315, 1317, 127 L. Ed. 2d 358, 114 S. Ct. 912 (1994).

The broad parameters of the prior restraint doctrine were further explained in the
Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 29 L. Ed. 2d
822, 91 S. Ct. 2140 (1971). There, the federal government sought to enjoin The New
York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified study on U.S.
policy-making in Vietnam. The Vietnam conflict was ongoing, and the government argued
that the publication of the classified information might damage the national interest.
The Court observed that, because any prior restraint on speech is presumptively invalid
under the First Amendment, the government bore a heavy burden of showing a
justification for the restraint. Finding that the government had not met its burden, the
Court denied the injunction. Id. at 714. n8 The government failed to demonstrate that
the injury to the national interest was both great and certain to occur. 403 U.S. at 730
(Stewart, J., concurring); 403 U.S. at 731 (White, J., concurring).

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

n8 The Supreme Court decided New York Times in nine separated opinions, by a six to
three majority: Justices Black and Douglas maintained that prior restraints could never
be valid; Justices Brennan, White, Stewart, and Marshall maintained that there could be
prior restraints in some cases, but not in the one at hand; Justices Burger, Harlan, and
Blackmun dissented, arguing that a prior restraint of the publication of classified
material was valid.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -End Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The Sixth Circuit has recently applied the prior restraint doctrine to overturn an
injunction against the publication of trade secrets and other confidential material in
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996). Procter & Gamble
and Bankers Trust were parties to civil litigation and had stipulated to the entry of a
protective order, which prohibited disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential
documents obtained during the discovery process. A journalist from Business
Week magazine obtained some of those documents. Procter & Gamble and Bankers Trust
sought an injunction prohibiting Business Week from publishing or disclosing any
information contained in the documents. The district court held an evidentiary hearing
and found that Business Week had knowingly violated the protective order by obtaining
the documents. The district court therefore enjoined Business Week from using the
confidential materials it had obtained unlawfully.

Business Week appealed. In reversing the district court, the Sixth Circuit held that
Business Week’s planned publication of the documents did not constitute a grave threat
to a critical government interest or to a constitutional right sufficient to justify a prior
restraint. To justify a prior restraint on pure speech, “publication must threaten an
interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself.” Id. at 227. n9 The court
found that Procter & Gamble and Bankers Trusts’ commercial interest in the confidential
documents was insufficient to justify an injunction. “The private litigants’ interest in
protecting their vanity or their commercial self interest simply does not qualify as
grounds for imposing a prior restraint.” 78 F.3d at 225. Further, the court held that
Business Week’s allegedly improper conduct in obtaining the documents did not justify
imposing a prior restraint, n10 and that the district court was misguided when it inquired
into the issue, stating, “The [district] court inquired painstakingly into how Business
Week obtained the documents and whether or not its personnel had been aware that
they were sealed. While these might be appropriate lines of inquiry for a contempt
proceeding or a criminal prosecution, they are not appropriate bases for issuing a prior
restraint.” Id.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

n9 Ford has also argued that Lane’s publication of Ford documents on his website is II
commercial speech,” because he stated that he was planning to offer Ford blueprints for
sale, he advised Ford that he was going to convert “blueovalnews.com” to a fee-paid
subscription website, and he had a link which stated “advertise on us.” Affidavits of
Nancy Oatley and Donald Aiken. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution
accords less protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally safeguarded
forms of expression. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 77 L. Ed. 2d
469, 103 S. Ct. 2875(1983). The factors cited by Ford, however, do not convert Lane’s
website into commercial speech, the core notion of which is “speech which does ‘no more
than propose a commercial transaction.”‘ Id. at 66. With reference to the factors cited in
Bolger, Id. at 66-67, there was no evidence submitted of advertising ever actually done
on the website, no evidence submitted of a specific product offered for sale, and no
evidence submitted that Lane’s motivation in publishing his website was in fact
economic.

n10 In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that the conduct of the
publisher is a relevant consideration when considering whether to uphold First
Amendment rights. “The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the
unrestrained right to gather information.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20,
32, 81 L. Ed. 2d 17, 104 S. Ct. 2199 (1984) (citing Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 16-17, 14
L. Ed. 2d 179, 85 S. Ct. 1271 (1965)). See also Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S.
663, 115 L. Ed. 2d 586, 111 S. Ct. 2513 (1991).

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -End Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Although there are distinctions one can draw between the case brought by Ford and the
existing precedent on prior restraint, those distinctions are defeated by the strength of
the First Amendment. While it may be true that Ford’s trade secrets here are more
competitive in nature and more carefully protected than those at issue in Procter &
Gamble, they are certainly not more volatile than those at issue in the Pentagon Papers
case. While it may be true that publication on the Internet is subject to fewer
editorial restraints than The New York Times, Business Week, or The Washington Post,
the material here is not more inflammatory than the anti-semitic tabloid at issue in
Near. And while the reach and power of the Internet raises serious legal implications,
nothing in our jurisprudence suggests that the First Amendment is circumscribed by the
size of the publisher or his audience.

The more troubling aspect of this case is whether Lane utilized the power of the Internet
to extort concessions or privileges from Ford, by threatening to sell blueprints or other
confidential documents. It is apparent from Lane’s October 30, 1998 letter that he
threatened Ford with the release of sensitive photographs when Ford first blocked his
access to Ford’s press release website, and that Lane raised the stakes and published
more highly confidential documents in response to Ford’s announcement of legal action.
He also threatened in the October 30 letter to solicit trade secret material from Ford
employees, although no evidence was submitted to establish that he actually did so,
and Lane has since testified that he does not know the identity of anyone who provided
him with documents. Finally, although the documents he published in July, having
to do with problems in Mustang engines and with Ford’s approach to emission standards,
do address issues of public concern, the documents published more recently appear to be
design and product information more useful to Ford’s competitors — published for the
purpose of flexing First Amendment muscle. Although the Sixth Circuit in Procter &
Gamble has held that a defendant’s improper conduct in obtaining confidential
information does not justify a prior restraint, the legal system may yet provide redress
through criminal prosecution, if such is found to be warranted by the underlying facts.

With respect to this proceeding, however, this Court is bound by existing precedent, and,
under the broad holdings of the Pentagon Papers case and Procter & Gamble, may not
enjoin Lane’s publication of Ford’s trade secrets and other internal documents. In the
absence of a confidentiality agreement or fiduciary duty between the parties, Ford’s
commercial interest in its trade secrets and Lane’s alleged improper conduct in obtaining
the trade secrets are not grounds for issuing a prior restraint. Procter & Gamble, 78 F.3d
at 225. Accordingly, Ford’s request for preliminary injunction of Lane’s using,
copying, or disclosing Ford’s internal documents must be DENIED.

B. Trademark Infringement

Ford also seeks a preliminary injunction against Lane’s use of its logo and trademark,
which were prominently featured on Lane’s website. Recent editions of
blueovalnews.com do not utilize any Ford trademarks or logos, even though Lane was
not enjoined from using them by the Temporary Restraining Order. Since Lane appears to
have voluntarily desisted from using Ford’s trademarks, Ford’s motion for a preliminary
injunction on this issue is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

IV. Conclusion

The last century has seen substantial advances in communications, of which the Internet
is only the most recent development. Each new medium, as it was introduced, changed
the balance of power in the constitutional equation involving the First Amendment. Every
advance in mass communication has enhanced the immediate and widespread
dissemination of information, often resulting in great potential for immediate and
irreparable harm. With the Internet, significant leverage is gained by the gadfly, who has
no editor looking over his shoulder and no professional ethics to constrain him.
Technology blurs the traditional identities of David and Goliath. Notwithstanding such
technological changes, however, the Courts have steadfastly held that the First
Amendment does not permit the prior restraint of speech by way of injunction, even in
circumstances where the disclosure threatens vital economic interests.

Being fully advised in the premises, having read the pleadings, taken testimony and
heard the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby
orders as follows:

The August 25, 1999 Temporary Restraining Order is DISSOLVED.

Ford’s motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

1) Ford’s request for preliminary injunction of Lane’s using, copying, or
disclosing Ford’s internal documents is DENIED, and Ford’s request for a
preliminary injunction against Lane’s use of Ford’s trademarks and logo is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

2) The other aspects of Ford’s request for a preliminary injunction are GRANTED
since Lane stipulated to the entry of a preliminary injunction as follows:

A. Lane is restrained from destroying, despoiling [*27] or
electronically deleting or erasing documents in his possession
originated by or for Ford Motor Company.

B. Lane is restrained from (1) committing any acts of infringement of
Ford’s copyrights, including unpublished works known by Lane to have
been prepared by a Ford employee within the scope of his or her
employment, or specially ordered or commissioned by Ford, if not an
employee; and (2) interfering with Ford’s contractual relationship with
its employees by soliciting Ford employees to provide Ford trade
secrets or other confidential information.

3) Lane is still obligated to comply with that part of the August 25, 1999
Temporary Restraining Order which required him to file with the Court, and
serve upon Ford, within ten days, a sworn statement (1) identifying with
particularity all documents within his possession, custody or control which were
originated by or for Ford, (2) identifying the source (by name or description) of
each document, and (3) providing details as to how Lane acquired each
document.

Nancy G. Edmunds

U. S. District Judge

Dated: September 7, 1999

Thursday, September 14, 2006

EEOC v. Target Corp (Discrimination Suit)

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
——————————————————————————–

FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

CONTACT: Dennis McBride
August 24, 2006 EEOC Trial Attorney
Milwaukee Area Office
(414) 297-4188

Jean P. Kamp
Associate Regional Attorney
Chicago District Office
(312) 353-7719

John C. Hendrickson
EEOC Regional Attorney
Chicago District Office
(312) 353-8551
TTY: (312) 353-2421

COURT OF APPEALS RULES TARGET MUST FACE TRIAL ON RACE DISCRIMINATION CHARGES
EEOC Presented Evidence That Retail Giant Failed to Hire Four African Americans in Milwaukee Stores Because of Race

CHICAGO – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has reversed a lower federal court in Milwaukee and ruled that an U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) race discrimination suit against the giant retailer Target Corporation should go to trial. The appeals court found that the EEOC had presented sufficient evidence — that Target refused to hire four African American applicants for entry-level management positions because of their race — to require a full trial. The court also held that a trial was required on the issue of whether Target had destroyed employment applications in bad faith, and whether its changed policies with respect to retaining records were sufficient.

“We find,” the court wrote, “that the EEOC did present sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Target’s reason for not interviewing [the African-American applicants] was a pretext for race discrimination.”

“EEOC has long been convinced that the evidence we were placing of record in this case was more than enough to require that the victims of Target’s alleged discrimination be afforded their day in court — their day in front of a jury,” said John Hendrickson, EEOC regional attorney for the Chicago District, which now includes Milwaukee. “Thanks to this important decision from the Court of Appeals, that day is now going to come, and we are very encouraged and pleased by that.”

Dennis McBride, the trial attorney in the EEOC’s Milwaukee Area Office who has led the government litigation effort, said, “This seems to us to be a classic case illustrating the negative impact that race still may have upon the search for work even at leading big-name employers who are marketing to millions of African Americans. The EEOC’s allegations include, for example, that Target had recruited for entry-level management positions at multi-cultural college job fairs, but then failed to consider African American applicants because of their race. That’s at the heart of what this case is about and why we are in it.”

The court’s unanimous decision (EEOC v. Target Corporation, 7th Cir. No. 04-3559, 8/23/2006) was authored by Circuit Judge Richard D. Cudahy and issued on August 23, 2006. It reversed the decision of Chief Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which had granted summary judgment to Target, and ordered that the matter be remanded to the district court.

James Tucker and Lorraine Davis in the EEOC Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. represented the agency on the appeal to the Seventh Circuit.

EEOC associate regional attorney in the Chicago District Jean Kamp noted, “One of the most significant evidentiary points here arose from the fact that one of the African American applicants included in the EEOC’s suit seemed to be well on the way to landing at job at Target, until the store realized from her name and voice that she was likely to be black — and then the job disappeared. So the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the EEOC may utilize expert evidence at trial to the effect that employers may discriminate based on African-American names or accents during telephone conversations is very important.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, gender (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability and retaliation. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.


Here is an article written by Ms. Kerry Bundy who is now heading the Target v. Doe suit. Some of it sounds like it can be used in ‘support’ of the Doe postings. Keep in mind that ‘Doe’ did not work for Target and did get the info FROM a former employee (Hundt) who did NOT return it when he left.
– – – – – – –
BTW: Here are some questions that Target needs to prepare an answer for if the matter ever goes to Federal Court.

Q. Ms. Bundy, please tell the court how many people were issued copies of the Target Directives? Now please tell the court how many copies were NOT returned by people when leaving Target employment? Now please tell the court how many copies of said Directives are in circulation as a result of either the Directives not being returned or as a result of their being photo copied and passed around? Now please tell the court if you proceeded against those former employees for damages for having allowed the circulation of the private and confidential Directives and while you are at it, please also tell us why you did not file suit for damages from your former employee Hundt who actually signed the confidentiality agreement and violated it, while blogger Doe simply posted the information he was given by your former employee.

=============================

An Overview of Trade Secret Protection

Can you keep a secret?

That’s the challenge for intellectual property owners who rely on trade secret protection to secure their sensitive business assets. Unlike patents, most copyrighted works, and trademarks – which must be publicly disclosed in order to seek recourse from competitors who want to steal them – trade secrets have legal value only to the extent that they stay secret.

File a patent on a new chemical or drug, and you can enjoy exclusive legal rights for about 20 years (often less in practical market terms). As long as you keep trade secrets away from prying eyes, however, they last forever. The trade-off? Once they’re out, they’re gone. A no-longer-secret trade secret enjoys essentially no legal protection under trade secret laws.

Just about anything can qualify as a trade secret – formulae, computer programs, business methods, database information, customer lists – basically, any knowledge that has economic value because people such as competitors don’t know about it and could profit from it if they did. It doesn’t necessarily have to be new, different, or unique, as you would expect from patented material and/or even fixed in a tangible form, as with copyrighted works. As long as the information has value because no one else knows about it – and you take reasonable efforts to avoid disclosure – it can qualify as a trade secret.

Pros and Cons

Not surprisingly, there are advantages and disadvantages to using trade secret protection to secure different types of business assets. Deciding whether to patent certain technology – or keep it under wraps as a trade secret – is often a tough strategic call. Usually, the decision rests on the type of information that needs to be protected.

Most intellectual property owners find the indefinite time limit of trade secret protection appealing, assuming that the information can be maintained in confidence and not easily replicated in the market. For example, say that the knowledge you wish to protect is a manufacturing process. If you patent the process, you get protection for about twenty years. Even though your competitors know exactly what you’re doing, they can’t copy your process. When your patent expires, however, it’s open season on that technology.

By contrast, if you rely on trade secret protection to secure your process, your protection lasts forever, as long as the process remains secret. However, if a competitor is able to replicate the process (without stealing your information), such as through reverse engineering, they’re free to do so at any time, and there is usually little or nothing you can do about it. So the question your business faces is: how vulnerable is your knowledge to being replicated or discovered by others? The answer will shape the kind of IP protection you’re likely to seek.

Misappropriation

Unlike patents and copyrights that are governed by federal law, trade secret protection derives primarily from state law. The origins of trade secret doctrine date all the way back to a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in 1868, and while numerous courts (including federal courts) have weighed in on specific aspects of trade secret law ever since, no federal civil legislation has ever tackled trade secrets directly. Instead, trade secret laws have been enacted on a state-by-state basis.

Minnesota was the first state to adopt the Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) in 1980, and more than forty other states have since followed suit. The UTSA was adopted in the wake of an increasing reliance by businesses on trade secret protection and a desire to codify common law trade secret principles.

Distilled to its essence, under the UTSA and most state interpretations, the existence of a trade secret is established using a two-fold test. First, you must have knowledge or information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable. Second, you must have taken reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the knowledge or information. In that circumstance, the UTSA provides protection by prohibiting the “misappropriation” of trade secrets and providing various remedies, including injunctive relief and damages.

“Misappropriation” covers both obtaining trade secrets through improper means and disclosing or using them without consent. The UTSA also casts a broad net to include not only actual misappropriation (where the theft or disclosure has actually occurred), but also “threatened” misappropriation (which some courts have held to include events such as a key employee bolting to a competitor and putting a trade secret at serious risk of disclosure).

What kinds of actions or circumstances create the greatest risk for trade secret owners? Consider the following:

One of your employees or independent contractors who has knowledge of your trade secrets leaves to join one of your competitors
One of your suppliers or distributors also works for a key competitor
One of your licensees, customers, business partners, or employees decides to start a competing business
You disclose your confidential information to a prospective business partner, and the deal falls through
This is not an exhaustive list, just a sample of the many ways in which day-to-day business dealings put your trade secrets at risk of misappropriation.

Protecting Your Trade Secrets

How do you take reasonable efforts to protect your trade secrets? Here are a few key steps:

Put it in writing. Consider keeping a written statement of your trade secret security policy. This provides two advantages. First, “unwritten rules” may wind up being laxly or inconsistently enforced within the organization. Second, documented trade secret policies provide evidence in court of the seriousness of the company’s efforts to protect its secrets.

Let your employees know. A proper trade secret protection plan should make employees aware of the confidentiality of certain information and, where appropriate, periodically remind them of their obligations to keep that information secure. This would include having employees counter-sign written confidentiality agreements. In addition, companies should consider conducting “exit interviews” with departing employees that include a written reminder of their ongoing responsibility to keep trade secret information secure.

Restrict access. “Sorry, that information is on a need-to-know basis.” Where appropriate, keep trade secret information physically separate from nonproprietary information, and restrict access only to those who genuinely require it. Depending on the nature of the intellectual property, this segregation may be as simple as keeping information in a separate filing cabinet, or it may necessitate building an entirely separate and secure facility.

Implement physical security. Consider providing additional security for the information through locked doors, gates, and cabinets. Again, the level of physical security will vary depending on the nature of the information and how the information is used in the business operations.

Consider labeling trade secret documentation. It can be very easy to reproduce, scan, and distribute documents today. Not only should documentation related to trade secret information be treated with special care, but in appropriate circumstances, it may be prudent to label trade secret documents as “SECRET” or “CONFIDENTIAL.” A company may also want to educate its employees who have access to such documents about their status, including the sensitivity of and destruction of trade secret documents.

Extend the security procedures to computer systems. Obviously, trade secrets stored in electronic format are particularly susceptible to theft. The entire subject of information systems security may warrant a thorough review by the organization, to minimize the possibility of external “hacking” or internal security breaches. The same care regarding access and labeling that is extended to physical space or documentation, should extend to computer systems where trade secrets are stored.

Be mindful of third parties. If business associates, prospective customers, or members of the public have access to facilities in which trade secrets are stored or used, take particular care to avoid inadvertent disclosure. This might include accidents (where documents are left carelessly in open view) or even deliberate but unintentional disclosures (such as tour guides or other employees who inform visitors about the project or process within the facility).

Screen speeches and publications where appropriate. Trade secrets often wind up being disclosed unintentionally at trade shows or in magazine articles, publications, press releases, or speeches. Engineers, marketing executives, mid-level managers, and others may exchange ideas with colleagues or share information publicly because they are unaware of its sensitivity. One tool for reducing this risk is implementing a policy of pre-screening all public communications.

Protect yourself with contracts. The nature of many businesses may require a company to disclose its trade secrets to potential buyers, licensees, joint venture partners, or other outsiders. When engaging in these kinds of third-party transactions, consider monitoring the flow of information carefully and documenting the nature of the trade secrets exposed and the specific limited use to which they may be put. This may include specific confidentiality agreements with the third parties.

When properly identified and secured, trade secrets can often be the most powerful of the various forms of intellectual property protection, given the indefinite lifespan they can offer. Trade secret owners can also obtain swift and dramatic relief in court if they act quickly and have taken care along the way to document and follow their trade secret protection plan. But trade secrets are, by their very nature, fragile. A secret only has value to the extent you can keep it a secret.

Authors

Randall E. Kahnke, RKahnke@faegre.com

Kerry L. Bundy, kbundy@faegre.com

© 2006 Faegre & Benson LLP. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Another item for your consideration:

=====================

Law.com Home Newswire LawJobs CLE Center LawCatalog Our Sites Advertise

Search In-House Counsel:
Advanced Search Law.com > In-House Counsel Home

How to Unmask an Anonymous Blogger
The company’s right to know vs. the anonymous blogger’s right to remain unknown

By: Kevin F. Berry
The Corporate Counselor
April 4, 2006

When does it make sense to spend the time and expense necessary to determine the identity of an anonymous blogger who is damaging the company?

This question is becoming increasingly important with the proliferation of blogs and Web postings for corporate criticism — from wakeupwalmart.com to http://www.googlereallysucks.blogspot.com. And whether companies and their in-house counsel pursue actions against bloggers in these cases involves more than the usual assessment of opportunity costs and the pure business interests of the company. There are limits to the rights of companies to compel an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to reveal the name of its customer, particularly when the ISP customer wishes to remain anonymous. This article explores what the courts are requiring companies to show before they will call for an ISP to divulge a blogger’s identity and provides some guidelines in evaluating whether to pursue such a strategy.

TYPICAL FACT PATTERN

Usually, these disputes arise from an anonymous Web posting or Web log (blog) including damaging comments about a company. The company, in an effort to stem the ill effects of the comments, particularly if they are false, sues the ISP to determine the blogger’s identity. The ISP declines to identify the blogger either because of an internal policy or a demand or expectation of privacy by the blogger.

Indeed, contracts between ISP and bloggers typically include language obligating the ISP to make certain efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the blogger’s identity. Under federal law, an ISP is required to notify a blogger if there has been a request for his identity. A court is then asked to consider compelling the ISP to unmask the blogger, either because an ISP files suit asking for such relief or a blogger files a John Doe suit to maintain his anonyminity.

Besides a desire to silence the company critic, other circumstances can instigate this kind of dispute. There have been reported decisions involving disgruntled or former employees seeking retribution, who spread rumors about a company on the Internet to induce a rise or fall in the stock price and then take advantage of the trading activity. Bloggers have also used anonymous postings to infringe on companies’ intellectual property. What is a company to do?

LEGAL ISSUE JOINED

In attempting to maintain their anonymity, bloggers have claimed protection under the First Amendment. There is a rich history in the United States of protecting anonymous free speech. Long before the days of the Web and blogging, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, among many others, frequently used pseudonyms in authoring various papers assailing their political opponents. More recently, the Supreme Court of the United States in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) struck down a local ordinance that required the distributor of handbills to disclose the author’s identity.

Of course, certain speech, like libel and defamation, is not protected. Moreover, an employer has some interest in protecting against the dissemination of certain other forms of speech, for example trade secrets and confidential proprietary information.

In addressing this delicate balance between protected and unprotected speech, the Supreme Court has expressed a concern for strike suits by monied parties seeking to quell criticism. See, e.g., Bradley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999). Furthermore. the monied parties are usually engaged in some expedited proceeding where one party is seeking some form of equitable relief. Here, the appellate courts are forced to review a limited record, not one where the parties have had a chance to explore all relevant evidence that supports their respective positions.

A number of courts have rushed to articulate a new set of standards to delineate the scope of discovery to determine the identity of anonymous bloggers. At times, the courts rulings have been described as “outcome determinative” — when a court comes to decision as to the case’s outcome and backs into its rationale for the result. Moreover, the results have not been consistent — leaving in-house counsel to navigate among jurisdictions and determine which one is the friendliest in granting the relief they seek.

QUESTION PRESENTED AND CASE LAW

Under what circumstances can a company learn the identity of an anonymous blogger who disparages the company or its products or services, recognizing there is a First Amendment right to anonymous free speech? The rulings are conflicting.

Two decisions in 1999 and 2001 were the first to enunciate standards for the trial court’s analysis in this arena. In Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in a trademark infringement action, set forth safeguards that a plaintiff (company) must meet prior to granting discovery of the blogger’s identity. The plaintiff must: 1) identify the target with sufficient specificity to establish the court’s jurisdiction; 2) demonstrate prior efforts to locate the target; 3) demonstrate that it can withstand a motion to dismiss; and 4) explain what specific discovery it wants and why it will identify the target. The “Motion to Dismiss” standard is a fairly low benchmark, requiring the company seeking disclosure merely to plead facts necessary to succeed in its claim.

Two years later, in Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div. 2001) a case involving two former employees who published critical comments concerning certain business practices of the company, the New Jersey Superior Court required: 1) notice to the target and an opportunity for the target to be heard; 2) fact specific pleadings; 3) a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff could survive a motion to dismiss and could set forth a prima facie claim with supporting evidence; and 4) assuming plaintiff survives the third hurdle, balancing the defendant’s First Amendment rights against the strength of plaintiff’s prima facie claim.

These two standards, i.e., “motion to dismiss” and “summary judgment,” seem to have set forth the parameters of the debate. Other courts have since worked to elaborate or refine these standards.

In Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), for example, the Delaware Supreme Court considered what a plaintiff must show in order to obtain a subpoena requiring an Internet service provider to disclose who posted anonymous comments about a politician on the Internet. After considering the First Amendment implications of various standards articulated by other courts, the Delaware Supreme Court, like the New Jersey Superior Court, held that a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing, sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. After noting the long history of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, the Delaware Supreme Court observed that the First Amendment did not protect defamatory or libelous speech. While it found that it had to construct a test that would protect the right to anonymous speech, the court would not extend First Amendment protection into new areas. Indicating that many “silly” libel cases can survive a motion to dismiss, the court decided that disclosing an anonymous Internet poster’s identity — any time a plaintiff could state a claim under Delaware’s notice pleading rules — would unduly burden the right to speak anonymously.

In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 1-04-CV-032178, 2005 WL 578641 (Cal. Super. Ct. March 11, 2005), the Superior Court of California ordered an ISP to identify people accused of misappropriating Apple Computer’s trade secrets by leaking confidential information about Apple products to or through Web sites. Apple filed a complaint against a group of unnamed individuals and entities that allegedly leaked trade secrets about new Apple products to several online Web sites, including AppleInsider and PowerPage. According to Apple, the information could have only been obtained from Apple employees who breached company confidentiality agreements. Apple sought the identities of the source(s) for this information, and subpoenaed Nfox, PowerPage’s e-mail service provider, for e-mail messages believed to identify names. Claiming that they were “journalists,” and that the First Amendment and the California reporter’s shield law allowed them to protect the confidentiality of their sources, three individuals moved for a protective order to block Apple’s subpoena. Noting that the California legislature had not carved out any exception to these statutes for journalists, Web bloggers or anyone else, the court agreed with Apple, and denied the motion for a protective order. In deciding to enforce Apple’s subpoena, the court reasoned that California’s civil and criminal statutes prohibiting the misappropriation of trade secrets reflect the state’s commitment to the protection of proprietary business information. Keeping this information secret is essential to the future of technology and innovation, and preserving this right outweighs any journalistic privilege.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has indicated that it might consider a balancing test in Melvin v. Doe, 836 A.2d 42 (Pa. 2003). In Melvin, a former state judge sought the identity of an Internet blogger who accused her of illegal lobbying. The case was decided on procedural grounds but a concurring opinion suggested that a test balancing the First Amendment right to anonymous speech with the right to address unprotected speech should be developed.

In Klehr Harrison Harvey y Branzberg & Ellers v. JPA Development, Inc., (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas 2006) (Judge Sheppard), the court considered whether a Web site operator was required to turn over the names of anonymous authors of comments that allegedly defamed a Philadelphia law firm engaged in a contentious lawsuit. After reviewing the Dendrite and Doe v. Cahill decisions, the court found that a new set of rules or guidelines woulddo more harm than good. It observed that Rule 4011 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure already provided a mechanism to resolve the dispute. Under that rule, a defendant could seek a protective order for discovery sought in “bad faith” or which would cause “unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense.” The court, however, concluded that the speech involved was defamation per se and from that found the Internet posting was not protected speech — making his opinion, in some sense, outcome determinative. The court did, however, review current commentary on the issue and suggested that the balancing of interests utilized by other courts — and recommended by the Melvin court — would emerge as controlling precedent.

WHAT TO CONSIDER BEFORE FILING SUIT

If identifying an anonymous blogger becomes necessary, investigation is a required prerequisite to determine the nature of the postings, and to place them in context of your business. For example, consider the following:

Who would have access to the information posted?
When would the information have been available to the blogger?
Can the company pinpoint potential targets because of the nature, content and accuracy/noticeable inaccuracies of the information disclosed, use of time sensitive information, or other specifically unique aspects that would “fingerprint” the information and allow the company to narrow the focus of its search for the author?
Preparation is also key. Before preparing pleadings to file in court, a company should draft affidavits with accompanying documents to describe the nature of the postings and why the postings do not deserve First Amendment protection, be it related to arguments of fraud, anti-competitive conduct, trade secrecy, violation of confidentiality agreements or other hallmarks of unprotected speech. Any pleading itself should conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s requirements of specificity — the who, what, when, where and why — which provide sufficient detail to the court to tip the balancing in your favor.

Any decision to commence litigation to unmask a blogger who disparages the company on the Internet requires an informed judgment. If the goal is to intimidate authors of critical comments alone, it is likely any effort will be both expensive and ineffective. If, however, the company can frame the argument that attacks the speech as unprotected, and supports that argument with tangible evidence, it stands a much greater chance of silencing its critics.

Kevin F. Berry, chair of the commercial litigation practice group at Cozen O’Connor, has more than 25 years experience in handling commercial and business litigation matters and has represented businesses in actions against anonymous bloggers. Contact Berry at kberry@cozen.com or (215) 665-4611.


Interesting Links F.Y.I. –
===========================

http://www.myspace.com/targetsecuritymanual
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/
http://groups.msn.com/TargetAPDirectives2006/_whatsnew.msnw
http://www.retailworker.com/forum
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TargetSucks/?yguid=262065473

http://bullseyebb.awardspace.com/index.php
http://www.targetunion.org/
http://groups.msn.com/ABUSEDBYWALMART/home
http://www.retail-worker.com/forum/index.php
http://breakroomnews.com/breakroom/index.php
http://www.youareworthmore.org/forum

http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/06/walmarts_latest_1.html
http://www.wallyworldsucks.com/
http://www.walmart-blows.com/forum/index.php?sid=b934681dc89ad9f7a0384e21afb6b7ff
http://www.walmartcrimereport.com/report.pdf
http://www.lawrencegoetz.com/programs/ipinfo/
http://www.faegre.com/
http://www.archive.org/index.php

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
http://targetstoressuck.blogspot.com/
http://kelseysigurdur.blogspot.com/
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fdc.htm
http://www.findlaw.com/
http://www.onlinedmv.com/index.html

http://nolo.com/
http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=open+records&search=Search%21&sites=findlaw
http://governmentguide.com/main.adp

http://people.tribe.net/2705db96-e5f6-4c63-99e8-47aa09fdab8a/blog/1c3cccad-b0c6-4886-a0c5-86fe9049ff9a
http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/target/target-targets-blogger-201306.php
http://www.noturnonred.org/
http://www.myspace.com/targetsecuritymanual

================================

29 Page ‘Is Wal Mart Safe’ – Crime Report –
http://www.walmartcrimereport.com/report.pdf
A good copy of the “Directives” on this site. –
http://www.myspace.com/targetsecuritymanual
A Retail Store Blog –
http://www.noturnonred.org/index.php/2006/09/19/suit-blogger-posted-target-trade-secrets

A seperate blog with the Directives –
http://targetstoressuck.blogspot.com/
A Target Site, but only 100 members –
http://bullseyebb.awardspace.com/index.php
Anti Wal Mart Site w/11,000 Users –
http://www.wallyworldsucks.com/

Anti Wal Mart Site, 4500 members –
http://www.walmart-blows.com/forum/index.php?sid=b934681dc89ad9f7a0384e21afb6b7ff
Anti Wal-Mart message board w/8 pages of links –
http://groups.msn.com/ABUSEDBYWALMART/home
Anti Wal-Mart Site –
http://www.walmart-blows.com/forum/index.php?sid=b934681dc89ad9f7a0384e21afb6b7ff
Anti Wal-Mart Site – Worth a Look –
http://walmartwatch.com/
AP/LP Site –
http://www.retailspy.com/

Attorney for Target Stores – Ms. K L Bundy –
http://www.faegre.com/lawyer_bio.aspx?pid=7371
Buy Target Sucks T-Shirts, mugs, magnets, etc –
http://www.cafepress.com/targetsucks
Consumer Site – Look up your least favorite retail chain and see the complaints! –
http://www.badbusinessbureau.com

Tuesday, September 05, 2006


How to Unmask an Anonymous Blogger

The company’s

right to know vs.

the anonymous

blogger’s right to

remain unknown

Kevin F. Berry
The Corporate CounselorApril 4, 2006

When does it make sense to spend the time and expense necessary to determine the identity of an anonymous blogger who is damaging the company?

This question is becoming increasingly important with the proliferation of blogs and Web postings for corporate criticism — from wakeupwalmart.com to http://www.googlereallysucks.blogspot.com/. And whether companies and their in-house counsel pursue actions against bloggers in these cases involves more than the usual assessment of opportunity costs and the pure business interests of the company. There are limits to the rights of companies to compel an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to reveal the name of its customer, particularly when the ISP customer wishes to remain anonymous. This article explores what the courts are requiring companies to show before they will call for an ISP to divulge a blogger’s identity and provides some guidelines in evaluating whether to pursue such a strategy.

TYPICAL FACT PATTERN

Usually, these disputes arise from an anonymous Web posting or Web log (blog) including damaging comments about a company. The company, in an effort to stem the ill effects of the comments, particularly if they are false, sues the ISP to determine the blogger’s identity. The ISP declines to identify the blogger either because of an internal policy or a demand or expectation of privacy by the blogger.

Indeed, contracts between ISP and bloggers typically include language obligating the ISP to make certain efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the blogger’s identity. Under federal law, an ISP is required to notify a blogger if there has been a request for his identity. A court is then asked to consider compelling the ISP to unmask the blogger, either because an ISP files suit asking for such relief or a blogger files a John Doe suit to maintain his anonyminity.

Besides a desire to silence the company critic, other circumstances can instigate this kind of dispute. There have been reported decisions involving disgruntled or former employees seeking retribution, who spread rumors about a company on the Internet to induce a rise or fall in the stock price and then take advantage of the trading activity. Bloggers have also used anonymous postings to infringe on companies’ intellectual property. What is a company to do?

LEGAL ISSUE JOINED

In attempting to maintain their anonymity, bloggers have claimed protection under the First Amendment. There is a rich history in the United States of protecting anonymous free speech. Long before the days of the Web and blogging, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, among many others, frequently used pseudonyms in authoring various papers assailing their political opponents. More recently, the Supreme Court of the United States in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) struck down a local ordinance that required the distributor of handbills to disclose the author’s identity.

Of course, certain speech, like libel and defamation, is not protected. Moreover, an employer has some interest in protecting against the dissemination of certain other forms of speech, for example trade secrets and confidential proprietary information.

In addressing this delicate balance between protected and unprotected speech, the Supreme Court has expressed a concern for strike suits by monied parties seeking to quell criticism. See, e.g., Bradley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999). Furthermore. the monied parties are usually engaged in some expedited proceeding where one party is seeking some form of equitable relief. Here, the appellate courts are forced to review a limited record, not one where the parties have had a chance to explore all relevant evidence that supports their respective positions.

A number of courts have rushed to articulate a new set of standards to delineate the scope of discovery to determine the identity of anonymous bloggers. At times, the courts rulings have been described as “outcome determinative” — when a court comes to decision as to the case’s outcome and backs into its rationale for the result. Moreover, the results have not been consistent — leaving in-house counsel to navigate among jurisdictions and determine which one is the friendliest in granting the relief they seek.

QUESTION PRESENTED AND CASE LAW

Under what circumstances can a company learn the identity of an anonymous blogger who disparages the company or its products or services, recognizing there is a First Amendment right to anonymous free speech? The rulings are conflicting.

Two decisions in 1999 and 2001 were the first to enunciate standards for the trial court’s analysis in this arena. In Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in a trademark infringement action, set forth safeguards that a plaintiff (company) must meet prior to granting discovery of the blogger’s identity. The plaintiff must: 1) identify the target with sufficient specificity to establish the court’s jurisdiction; 2) demonstrate prior efforts to locate the target; 3) demonstrate that it can withstand a motion to dismiss; and 4) explain what specific discovery it wants and why it will identify the target. The “Motion to Dismiss” standard is a fairly low benchmark, requiring the company seeking disclosure merely to plead facts necessary to succeed in its claim.

Two years later, in Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div. 2001) a case involving two former employees who published critical comments concerning certain business practices of the company, the New Jersey Superior Court required: 1) notice to the target and an opportunity for the target to be heard; 2) fact specific pleadings; 3) a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff could survive a motion to dismiss and could set forth a prima facie claim with supporting evidence; and 4) assuming plaintiff survives the third hurdle, balancing the defendant’s First Amendment rights against the strength of plaintiff’s prima facie claim.

These two standards, i.e., “motion to dismiss” and “summary judgment,” seem to have set forth the parameters of the debate. Other courts have since worked to elaborate or refine these standards.

In Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), for example, the Delaware Supreme Court considered what a plaintiff must show in order to obtain a subpoena requiring an Internet service provider to disclose who posted anonymous comments about a politician on the Internet. After considering the First Amendment implications of various standards articulated by other courts, the Delaware Supreme Court, like the New Jersey Superior Court, held that a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing, sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. After noting the long history of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, the Delaware Supreme Court observed that the First Amendment did not protect defamatory or libelous speech. While it found that it had to construct a test that would protect the right to anonymous speech, the court would not extend First Amendment protection into new areas. Indicating that many “silly” libel cases can survive a motion to dismiss, the court decided that disclosing an anonymous Internet poster’s identity — any time a plaintiff could state a claim under Delaware’s notice pleading rules — would unduly burden the right to speak anonymously.

In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 1-04-CV-032178, 2005 WL 578641 (Cal. Super. Ct. March 11, 2005), the Superior Court of California ordered an ISP to identify people accused of misappropriating Apple Computer’s trade secrets by leaking confidential information about Apple products to or through Web sites. Apple filed a complaint against a group of unnamed individuals and entities that allegedly leaked trade secrets about new Apple products to several online Web sites, including AppleInsider and PowerPage. According to Apple, the information could have only been obtained from Apple employees who breached company confidentiality agreements. Apple sought the identities of the source(s) for this information, and subpoenaed Nfox, PowerPage’s e-mail service provider, for e-mail messages believed to identify names. Claiming that they were “journalists,” and that the First Amendment and the California reporter’s shield law allowed them to protect the confidentiality of their sources, three individuals moved for a protective order to block Apple’s subpoena. Noting that the California legislature had not carved out any exception to these statutes for journalists, Web bloggers or anyone else, the court agreed with Apple, and denied the motion for a protective order. In deciding to enforce Apple’s subpoena, the court reasoned that California’s civil and criminal statutes prohibiting the misappropriation of trade secrets reflect the state’s commitment to the protection of proprietary business information. Keeping this information secret is essential to the future of technology and innovation, and preserving this right outweighs any journalistic privilege.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has indicated that it might consider a balancing test in Melvin v. Doe, 836 A.2d 42 (Pa. 2003). In Melvin, a former state judge sought the identity of an Internet blogger who accused her of illegal lobbying. The case was decided on procedural grounds but a concurring opinion suggested that a test balancing the First Amendment right to anonymous speech with the right to address unprotected speech should be developed.
In Klehr Harrison Harvey y Branzberg & Ellers v. JPA Development, Inc., (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas 2006) (Judge Sheppard), the court considered whether a Web site operator was required to turn over the names of anonymous authors of comments that allegedly defamed a Philadelphia law firm engaged in a contentious lawsuit. After reviewing the Dendrite and Doe v. Cahill decisions, the court found that a new set of rules or guidelines woulddo more harm than good. It observed that Rule 4011 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure already provided a mechanism to resolve the dispute. Under that rule, a defendant could seek a protective order for discovery sought in “bad faith” or which would cause “unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense.” The court, however, concluded that the speech involved was defamation per se and from that found the Internet posting was not protected speech — making his opinion, in some sense, outcome determinative. The court did, however, review current commentary on the issue and suggested that the balancing of interests utilized by other courts — and recommended by the Melvin court — would emerge as controlling precedent.

WHAT TO CONSIDER BEFORE FILING SUIT

If identifying an anonymous blogger becomes necessary, investigation is a required prerequisite to determine the nature of the postings, and to place them in context of your business. For example, consider the following:

Who would have access to the information posted?
When would the information have been available to the blogger?
Can the company pinpoint potential targets because of the nature, content and accuracy/noticeable inaccuracies of the information disclosed, use of time sensitive information, or other specifically unique aspects that would “fingerprint” the information and allow the company to narrow the focus of its search for the author?

Preparation is also key. Before preparing pleadings to file in court, a company should draft affidavits with accompanying documents to describe the nature of the postings and why the postings do not deserve First Amendment protection, be it related to arguments of fraud, anti-competitive conduct, trade secrecy, violation of confidentiality agreements or other hallmarks of unprotected speech. Any pleading itself should conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s requirements of specificity — the who, what, when, where and why — which provide sufficient detail to the court to tip the balancing in your favor.

Any decision to commence litigation to unmask a blogger who disparages the company on the Internet requires an informed judgment. If the goal is to intimidate authors of critical comments alone, it is likely any effort will be both expensive and ineffective. If, however, the company can frame the argument that attacks the speech as unprotected, and supports that argument with tangible evidence, it stands a much greater chance of silencing its critics.
Kevin F. Berry, chair of the commercial litigation practice group at Cozen O’Connor, has more than 25 years experience in handling commercial and business litigation matters and has represented businesses in actions against anonymous bloggers.

Contact Berry at kberry@cozen.com or (215) 665-4611.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Target Stores Suck
FYI: Articles/info/misc postings about Target and Wal-Mart.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Suit: Blogger posted Target trade secrets
This article has relevance to the Directives, but if you want to skip it just scroll down to get to the Directives.

======================================================

Atlanta Business Chronicle
Friday 9-15-06
By Justin Rubner, Staff Writer

Suit: Blogger posted Target trade secrets

Target Corp. is on the hunt for a feisty blogger who has allegedly posted the retail giant’s secrets on the Internet.

The Minneapolis-based company is suing the unidentified “John Doe”, who is believed to live in Georgia, in Federal Court for posting Target’s anti-theft procedures on Web sites and various retail employee forums on the Internet in July.

The information is used to secure Target’s merchandise from shoplifters and other wrongdoers. Target says in a court filing it is provided to employees on a “need-to-know” basis.

To find out who the “John Doe” is, Target is seeking the help of AOL, Yahoo!Inc. and Microsoft Corp. It’s unclear whether these companies will comply, though.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 5th in Federal Court in Atlanta, follows a two and a half month campaign that included efforts to get the multiple postings deleted from various message boards.

It also follows the publishing of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s recent theft-prevention policy change, leaked to the New York Times in July, which said shoplifters would no longer be charged for stealing less than $25 in goods.

Shoplifting is a $10 billion to $13 billion a year nightmare for U.S. retailers, according to California-based retail security expert Chris McGoey, also known as the “Crime Doctor”. Even though stores such as Target and Wal-Mart rack in tens of billions of dollars of sales annually, shoplifting can account for up to 3 percent of those sales every year, he says.

“That’s profit they should have gained,” said McGoey, who advises almost every national retail chain in the country.

Target operates more than 1,400 stores, including 45 in Georgia.

Target’s lawsuit illustrates the lengths to which companies will go to protect secret information from reaching the masses, said Jason Bernstein, an Atlanta-based intellectual property attorney at Powell Goldstein LLP. He says Target is trying to send a clear message to rogue posters that the publishing of trade secrets is something the company will not stand for.

“It’s demonstrating to me an incredible awareness these companies have of the importance of their trade secrets and confidential info because they rely on them to increase sales and prevent theft,” Bernstein said. “Companies like Target, they’re also trying to send a statement to the industry. They’re probably very upset over this.”

In the lawsuit, Target claims the postings have already led to losses and that they provide “potential wrongdoers with the blueprint for circumventing Target’s security procedures.” The policy which Atlanta Business Chronicle obtained at targetunion.org, outlines in detail various rules, such as mandating that all thefts above $20 must be referred for prosecution and barring anyone from photographing employees who have been caught shoplifting.

If Target does ID the blogger, and he or she still refuses to cease the postings, the company faces some sticky issues, a First Amendment and intellectual property expert says.

For one, it is not known whether the poster ever signed a confidentiality decree. If the John Doe didn’t, then Target would have to prove the poster knew the policy was confidential, said David Bodney, a First Amendment and media rights lawyer with Phoenix-based Steptoe & Johnson LLP. Bodney, also a lecturer at Arizona State University, adds that Target would have to prove the postings had no legitimate purpose other than to malign. “It’s an uphill battle, he said.

However, he also points out that free speech is not absolute, especially if a judge decides – as Target claims – that the policy is a court-protected company secret.

“It’s a disappointing reality that our constitutional liberties are conditional,” Bodney said.

According the suit, the poster obtained the 30-plus-page policy from a terminated Target theft prevention employee in Wisconsin. That employee allegedly e-mailed the policy to the John Doe and only knew the poster through his association with the anti-Target Web sites.

In July, just days after the employee posted the policy on targetunion.org, the suit says Target contacted the employee and demanded he delete it from the site and his computer. He allegedly obliged, but the John Doe never did – despite the fact that Target contacted the poster’s various e-mail accounts and posted messages on popular anti-Target Web sites demanding the practice to stop.

In response to one of Target’s postings, the blogger – who used screen names such as “Target Sucks” – allegedly wrote online “I didn’t sign any confidentiality agreement with them and really don’t give a rat’s ass if they like it or not.” The poster also warned others on targetunion.org that Target law firm Faegre & Benson was monitoring the site, and published attorney Kerry Bundy’s e-mail address and phone number. In response, another poster wished “a million scrounger” on the law firm. A scrunge is a parasitic alien on Nintendo video games.

An e-expert was hard pressed to predict which side has the upper hand. Eugene Volokh, a University of California law professor who specializes in free speech issues, compares the case to four others: three involving Apple Computer Inc., and one involving Fort Motor Co. Apple has had mixed luck with its ongoing war against leakers in recent years. And Ford in 1999, lost a lawsuit regarding a blogger who posted corporate documents showing some negative information about the company’s vehicles. The site, blueovalnews.com, still exists today.

Sidebar:
Protecting secrets or targeting free speech?

Target Corp. is suing a blogger for posting a secret theft-prevention policy online.

* The unknown poster is believed to live in Georgia
* Target is asking AOL, Yahoo! And Microsoft for help in locating the poster
* The policy has been posted on several sites, including retail-worker.com and targetunion.org

Source: Complaint No 1:06-CV-2116 filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta.

# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 1:31 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Super Target

# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 7:13 PM 0 comments
Friday, September 01, 2006

Feel the need to ‘belong’ – Sign up for another site!

Join Target AP Directives 2006

MSN Groups

# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 11:58 PM 0 comments

TARGET CORPORATION V. JOHN DOE
Target Filing Sept 5, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

Target Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation, V JOHN DoE, 1 :06-CV-2116
Defendant

For its Complaint, plaintiff Target Corporation (“Target”) states and alleges as
follows

INTRODUCTION
Target brings this action against an Internet user who is deliberately posting Target
copyrighted, confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information across the Internet, including to a website hosted in Minnesota. Target seeks an injunction against Defendant, as well as other available legal and equitable relief arising from Defendant’s tortuous actions.

PARTIES
1 . Target is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in
Minneapolis, Minnesota .

2 . The true name and capacity of Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time
Defendant is known to Plaintiff only by his Internet username “Target Sucks .” Additionally,

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 29

2
mrpauljrogers@yahao com, chams46Chotmail .com, anonymousematl2@aol com,
ILovePie@yahoo.com, and usembassysouthafi-ica@hotmail.com

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3 This Court hasjurisdiction under 17 U .S C § 101 et seq, 28 U .S .C.
§ 1331(federal question); and 28 U .S C § 1338(a) (copyright) . This Court also has
jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U .S C. § 1332(a)(1) because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states .
4 . Venue in this District is proper under 28 U S C § 1391 and/or 28 U .S.C
1400(a). Although the true identity of Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, on information and belief, Defendant resides in the State of Georgia and a substantial part of the acts of infringement and rrusappropriahon complained of herein occurred in this District .

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Target’s Business and Valuable Intellectual Property
5 Target owns and operates retail merchandise discount stores across the United
States . Today, Target operates more than 1400 TARGET stores, including more than 45
TARGET stores in Georgia
6. As part of its effort to protect its retail stores from physical threats and
financial losses, Target, through considerable effort and expense, has created loss prevention procedures and protocols . One of the key loss prevention protocols created by Target is Target’s Asset Protection Directives (“Target AP Directives”)
7. The Target AP Directives are a set of written methods, techniques and
processes that are used by Target’s asset protection personnel to secure Target’s merchandise

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 29

Internet at the website wrAw .targetunion .org . and other property from theft, and to deal with the apprehension of shoplifters and other wrongdoers .
8 . The Target AP Directives are Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary,
and trade secret information .
9 The Target AP Directives include information that is not generally known to
the public or in the industry .
10 . Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this
information The Target AP Directives are password restricted and only available to those employees with a “need-to-know,” namely, the asset protection team .
11 . Target has an Information Security Policy where all employees, before
commencing their employment, sign an acknowledgement agreeing to maintain the
confidentiality of Target’s non-public information . and to never disclose it to anyone outside of the company.
Defendant’s Improper Use of Target’s AP Directives
12. On or around June 29, 2006, Defendant acquired a copy of Target’s AP
Directives from a recently terminated Target employee, Scott Hundt (“Hundt”) . Upon
information and belief, Hundt only knew Defendant because of his anti-Target website
postings Hundt sent a copy of the Target AP Directives to Defendant by email
13 Hundt, as a former asset protection specialist at a Target store in Wisconsin,
improperly kept the Target AP Directives upon termination .
14. On Sunday, July 2, 2006, Hundt also posted the Target AP Directives on the

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 3 of 29
4
15 . On or around July 10, Target learned of Hundt’s improper disclosure to
Defendant and the Internet. Shortly thereafter, Target contacted Hundt by telephone Hundt returned Target’s telephone call and acknowledged his wrongdoing . Hundt immediately deleted all references to the Target AP Directives from his hard drive and from the Internet .
16 . Target also demanded that Hundt contact Defendant and request that
Defendant destroy the Target AP Directives, delete any Internet postings of the Target AP Directives posted by him, and never use them again . Hundt stated that he did not know Defendant’s name or address, and did not personally know him, but had his email address . Hundt emailed Defendant and requested him to remove the postings, but Defendant failed to respond.
17. Hundt also provided Target with the email address that Hundt had for
Defendant Target emailed Hundt a cease and desist letter at that address, but received no response .
18 Instead of abiding by Target and Hundt’s demands to remove the Target AP
Directives, Defendant began posting the Target AP Directives on various retail-employee forums on the Internet, including the following locations :
http //targetsucks elevation24 coin
http //tivwtiv. targeiuniora org
http 11bullseyebb .aivardspace coin
http ://targetstoressuck blogspot corn
http //wwtiv retail-worker corn
http .//people tribe net

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 4 of 29
5
19. Beginning on or around July 12, 2006, Target, through its counsel, sent
demand letters to the moderators and administrators of the websites that posted Target AP Directives. Target advised them that Defendant, under the alias “Target Sucks,” was posting improperly Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information . (A copy of a sample letter sent to the moderators/administrators is attached as Ex . A )
20. In conjunction with writing to the moderators and/or administrators, Target
also attempted to contact Defendant directly by sending private messages to Defendant
through the forums . (A copy of two sample emails sent to Defendant are attached as Ex . B.)
21 In response to Target’s demand letters, the administrators and/or moderators
removed the Target AP Directives from their websrtes .
22. Defendant, however, did not respond to Target’s email messages . Instead,
Defendant re-posted the Target AP Directives as soon as the moderator and/or administrator removed them from the website. Target re-contacted the moderators and/or adrrunistrators, and the information was again deleted . Indeed, at least one of the websites – http //targetstoressuck blogspot.com – terminated Defendant’s blog .
23 . On July 27, 2006, the moderator of -www .retail-worker coin posted Target’s
cease and desist letter on its website and explained why she deleted Defendant’s posting of the Target AP Directives . An exchange between Defendant and the moderator ensued, whereby Defendant admitted that he was posting the Target AP Directives for no reason other than to harm Target . (A copy of the email exchange is attached as Ex C .)
24. Since July 27, 2006, Defendant continues to re-post (or attempt to re-post) the
Target AP Directives on the Internet At websites where his blog was inactivated, he has changed his username in order to be able to re-post the Target AP Directives

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 5 of 29
6
25 . Defendant’s actions are a complete and intentional disregard of Target’s
property rights . Since July 27, 2006, Defendant had posted on numerous websites that
“Target’s lawyers are monitoring this website .” In response to Target’s cease and desist letter, Defendant states on the Internet that he does not care whether the Target AP Directives are copyrighted or trade secrets :
As to whether or not said info is in some form `protected’, I have no idea and
don’t care I saw it both online already posted and via email and if someone at
T let the cat out of the bag then that is between T and them . I didn’t sign any
confidentiality agreement with them and really don’t give a rats ass if they like
it or not .
(A copy of the posting is attached hereto as Ex . D )
26. Defendant has never responded to Target’s demands for Defendant to cease
and desist posting the Target AP Directives .
27 . Through various investigative techniques employed by Target over the last
few weeks, Target believes that Defendant uses America On-Line as his Internet Service Provider Target believes that information obtained in discovery will lead to the verification of Defendant’s true name and address

COUNT I
Infringement of Copyrights
28 Target realleges and incorporates by reference herein the foregoing allegations
of the Complaint .
29 Target is, and at all relevant times has been, the copyright owners of exclusive
rights under United States copyright law with respect to certain copyrighted Target AP Directives .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 6 of 29

7
30 . The Target AP Directives are subject to a valid Certificate of Copyright
Registration issued by the Registrar of Copyrights to Target as specified on Exhibit E
31 . Among the exclusive rights granted to Target under the Copyright Act are the
exclusive rights to reproduce the Target AP Directives and to distribute the Target AP Directives
32 . Defendant, without the permission or consent of Target, has used, and
continues to use, the Internet, to disserrvnate and/or make available for distribution to others, the Target AP Directives .
33 . Defendant’s dissemination of the Target AP Directives is deliberate, willful,
malicious, oppressive, and without regard to Target’s proprietary rights
34 . As a result of Defendant’s infringement of Target’s copyrights and exclusive
rights under copyright, Target is entitled to statutory damages pursuant to 17 U S .C § 504(c)against Defendant for each infringement by Defendant . Target is also entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U S C . § 505 .
35 Defendant’s copyright infringement, and the threat of continuing infringement,
has caused, and will continue to cause, Target repeated and irreparable injury . It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of money damages that would afford Target adequate relief at law for Defendant’s acts and continuing acts, and a multiplicity ofjudicial proceedings that would be required Target’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate them for the injuries already inflicted and further threatened by Defendant . Therefore, Defendant should be restrained and enjoined pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U S .C. § § 502 and 503

COUNT II
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 7 of 29
Court
36. Target realleges and incorporates by reference herein the foregoing allegations
of the Complaint.
37 Defendant acquired confidential and proprietary information belonging to
Target.
38 Defendant was advised that the information he acquired was Target trade
secret information that should not be used or disclosed by him .
39 After receiving notice of the confidentiality of the Target trade secret
information, Defendant had a duty to Target to maintain the secrecy of this information and limit its use for the benefit of only Target .
40. This confidential and proprietary information had independent economic value
because it was not generally known to or readily ascertainable by persons outside of Target
41 Target intended to keep this information confidential and has made reasonable
efforts under the circumstances to maintain the secrecy of the information .
42. Defendant has used and/or disclosed, and continues to use and/or disclose,
such information without the express or implied consent of Target, for the benefit of himself . Such use constitutes a violation of Ga Stat . § 10-1-760 et seq, and Georgia common law principles against misappropriation of trade secrets
43 . As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s misappropriation of trade
secrets, Target has been damaged in an amount greater than $75,000, the specific amount of which shall be determined at trial In addition, Target has suffered irreparable harm and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the conduct of the Defendant is enjoined by this

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 8 of 29
9
WHEREFORE , Plaintiff Target Corporation respectfully requests judgment against
Defendant as follows :
An injunction, among other things, prohibiting Defendant from disclosing and
using the Target AP Directives and requiring Defendant to delete all Internet postings created by him of the Target AP Directives ;
2. Statutory damages for each infringement pursuant to 17 U .S.C § 504;
Recovery of Target’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred herein ; and
4 Any further relief that the Court deems just and equitable .

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 9 of 29
1 0
DUNCAN & MANGIAFICO, PC :
,., Dated. September 1, 2006
nnife C Adair (#001901)
uite 220
7000 Central Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone. (770)698-4560
Facsimile : (770)698-4565
FAEGRE & BENSON LLP :
s/Dara Mann
Dara Mann (#469065)
Suite 1900
3350 Riverwood Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30330
Telephone : (678) 627-8190
Facsitrule• (612) 766-1600
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
TARGET CORPORATION
Of Counsel
(upon admission pro hac vice)
James R. Steffen (MN #469065)
Kerry L. Bundy (MN #266917)
Faegre & Benson
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone : (612) 766-7000
Facsimle : (612) 766-1600
M2 2 08193 8 3 0 4
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 10 of 29
KERRY L BUNDY
kbundy”4fargrc cum
(6121766 .821
‘lien” VIA E-MAIL
Administrator of “Return of the Target Sucks” Website
VIA E-NL4[L
Dear “Jen”/Ms . Destree :
EXHIBIT A
FAEGRE
BENSON _1
U \ I TFn ST47 F5 F NG LAND GERMANY C HINA
July 11, 2005
Jennifer Destree
Registrant of elevation24 .com
733 Hickory Avenue
Orangevale, CA 95662
Re. Improper Disclosure of Target’s AP Directives on Website
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc . (collectively, “Farget”) in
connection with intellectual property matters and in connection with their ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information We are writing to you in your capacity as Administrator and/or Registrant of the blog website http //targetsucks elevation24 com to advise you that a post to the website contains Target confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed In addition, the post wrongfully reproduces copyrighted material belonging to Target
[n case you were not aware, on July 2, 2006, user name “Target Sucks” posted to your
website Target’s 2006 Asset Protection Directives . These directives include information which is used in the conduct of Target’s asset protection program and is not generally known to the public or in the industry. Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information As it appears from your posts that you are a current and,lor former Target employee, you are most likely aware that under Target’s policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to the Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information
As we hope you can appreciate, Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006
Asset Protection Directives on the “targetsucks” website to be a very serious matter . Allowing Target’s confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target’s security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity This not only jeopardizes Target’s property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target customers and employees
220 0 WE LLS FAR GO CE NTER 90 SOUTH SEVE NTH STREET N71 yINE 4P OL]S MINNESOTA SS4D2 39 0 1
TELEPH O NE 612 7ss – 7 0 0 o FACSIMILE 612 7 6 6-160 0 WWW FAEGRE CO M
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 11 of 29
M2 208102 34 01
Jennifer Destree
July 11, Zoos
Page 2
We note that the rules of your forum expressly state that “Me owners of Return of the
Target Sucks reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason .” Under the circumstances here, Target asks that you remove the July 2, 2006, and any other posting of Target’s 2006 Asset Protection Directives at your earliest possible convenience In addition, to allow us to follow up directly with the individual who wrongfully posted the 2006 Asset Protection Directives, we ask that you promptly supply us with contact information for poster “Target Sucks “
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated, and we look forward to receiving prompt
confirmation that you have removed the 2006 Asset Protection Directives from your site and to your provision of contact information for the individual that posted the2006 Asset Protection Directives.
Sincerely,
erry L Bundy
KLB/rew

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 12 of 29

EXHIBIT B
Bundy, Kerry L.
From, Bundy, Ke rry L
Sent : Monday, July 17, 2006 2 46 PM
To: ‘annonymousemad2@aol com’
Subject: RE Improper Posting of Target 2006 AP Directives
Attachments : scan pdf
s can p df (78 KB)
Please review the attached letter . Thank you .
Kerry Bundy
Faegre & Benson
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 S . 7th St .
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-766-8217
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 13 of 29
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Sir/Madame-
TELEPHONE 672 -766-70 00 1 F A CSI MILE 612 – 7 5 F – 560 9 1 %tiWW FAEGR h l’OM1t
FAEGRE
BENSON
UNITED STATES ENGLAND GERMANY I C HIN A
July 17, 2006
Username “Targetsuc ks”
annonvmousemail2 u,ao l. corn
Re: Improper Disclosure of Target’s AP Directives on Internet
K ERRY L.. BI11JD t
k burdyf.4faegrc com
(6 121 766-82 1
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, lnc (collect ively, “Target”) in
connect ion with intellectu a l property matters and in connection wit h thei r ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information This l etter is to advise you t hat certain postings made by you of t he Target 2006 Asset Protect i on Directives on the websites http•//targetsucks.elevation24 eom, hitp://www targetunion.org,
hltp.//bullseyeb8 awardspace coin, and http //targetstoressuck blogspot.com contain Target
copyrighted, confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed.
As you know, the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives include information which is
used in the conduct of Target’s asset protection program and is not generally known to the public or in the industry . These directives also include copyrighted material As we believe you also know, Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information Under Target’s policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to its Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information Access to these directives are restricted to Target AP employees and under no circumstances are they to be distributed to anyone outside of Target .
Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the Internet to be a very serious matter . Allowing Target’s confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target’s security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity. This not only jeopardizes Target’s property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target employees and guests
It is our understanding that, although you were provided improperly with the Target 2006
Asset Protection Directives by a former Target employee, that person has requested that you delete all postings made by you that contain the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives We hope and expect that upon review of the facts set forth in this letter, you will delete all such
2200 WEL LS FARGO CENTER I 9 0 SOUTH S EVFNTH S TRF FT I M17 INYCAPOLIS MINNESOTA S5a0 1-3 9 61
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 14 of 29
h12 20910 329 0 3
Targetsucks
July 17, 2006
Page 2
postings at your earliest convenience . Target also requests that you immediately destroy all
paper and electronic copies of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives in your possession .
Please provide us with prompt, written confirmation of your compliance with these requests no later than noon on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 . If we do not receive timely confirmation from you, we will assume that you do not intend to remove your wrongful posts, and we will proceed to consider and take further appropriate action .
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated .
Sincerely,
CJ
Kerry undy
KLB/rew

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 15 of 29

July 27, 2006
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Sir/Madame .
T F I F 11110N’ F 612-7 6 5 7 000 HALS1%111 F 617 766 1600 %VW%Y F AI’C R F C UN7
COPY FAEGRE C OPY
BENSON
lLP
UNITED STATES I ENGLAND GERMANY ‘ CHINA
KERRY L B[,T1DY
kbundy i~ faegre coin
(6 12) X 65- 82 1 1

Username “Targetsucks”
Re: Improper Disclosure of Target’s AP Directives on Internet
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc. (collectively, “Target”) in
connection with intellectual property matters and in connection with their ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information . This letter is to advise you that certain postings made by you of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the website http //Kww retail-worker coin contain Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed .
As you know, the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives include information which is
used in the conduct of Target’s asset protection program and is not generally known to the
public or in the industry These directives also include copyrighted material . As we believe you also know, Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information Under Target’s policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to its Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information Access to these directives are restricted to Target AP employees and under no circumstances are they to be distributed to anyone outside of Target Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the Internet to be a very serious matter. Allowing Target’s confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target’s security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity This not only jeopardizes Target’s property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target employees and guests.
We hope and expect that upon review of the facts set forth in this letter, you will delete all such postings at your earliest convenience . Target also requests that you immediately destroy al paper and electronic copies of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives in your possession .

Please provide us with prompt, written confirmation of your compliance with these requests no later than noon on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 If we do not receive timely confirmation from you, we will assume that you do not intend to remove your wrongful posts, and we will proceed to consider and take further appropriate action
2 200 wbLtS FA UCO C F VT FK 90 SOUT H yF.v h `T H ST1tFF 7 t11 NtYrA P OL 1 5 M1uNVk SUTA SS ao 2-7 901

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 16 of 29

M2 20814344 01
Targetsucks
July 27, 2006
Page 2
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kerry L. Bundy
KLBlrew
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 17 of 29

WORKER
Search
Guess I’ll hang out here then .
<>
Comment viewing options
Flat list -expanded ~ Date – oldest first T 10 comments per page T
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click “Save settings” to
activate your changes .
Discount?
( Bes t Buy Fo rum)
5 repli es
( latest repli e s)
Gr ea t Customer Qu es ti ons
sleK Says:
Thu,07/27/200 6
6 07pm
EXHIBIT C
RETifIL
Home
News
F orum
About the I W W
ISite Stats
I Site Tech Sup p ort
C o nta ct Us
Username:
Password : ‘~
Create ne w a ccount
Re q uest new p assword
Interesting Employees
(Walgreens forum)
(0 replies)
Geek Squad T Shirt
(Best Buy Forum)
(0 replies)
Travel Reimbursement
Question
(Home Depot Forum)
(1 reply)
freight metrics
(Home Depot Forum)
(0 replies)
Night I’m sorry
(Lowes Forum)
(0 replies)
Most Recently
Commented
Home » Forum * Specific Stores * Target Employee Forums Anyone Know Why
The Target Sucks Forum Is Down?
Anyone know why the target sucks forum is- down?
Submitted by backroompeon on Mon, 02/13/2006 – 1 14am.
I am sorry to see it gone . And I had been on there earlier tonight .
loin or register to post comments j f I11 I ~ I 0 I aY ILo Ile I
P5
Targetflowslave
Says:
Mon, 02/13/2006 –
5 2 4am
redandkhak i
Says:
Thu, 02/ 1 6/2006 –
11 23am
Thats what i want to know
login or register to post comments
backroompeon wrote :
I am sorry to see it gone . And I had been on
there earlier tonight .
Guess I’ll hang out here then .
Who gives a flying f**k where it went. It’s narrowminded
people are gone, at least for now, until they start making
trouble here or somewhere else . You know the ones, the die
hard fans of target. Targets cks was a corporate venture .
login or register to post mments
there seems t o be s ome delet in g of thi s info g oin g on
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 18 of 29
sle K Says:
Thu, 07/27/2006 –
11 .34pm
login or register to post comments
login or register to post comments
i0 MYYk ic-p!
nAaa m IC
Q -0 MY MSN
Technoratl
∎lDG PINCER
JIM B1oglLae a
i0 6-
0 MrFeeascer
Jim .aia 0)4
[p IInMF111
s1eK Says :
Fri, 07/28/2006 –
12-56am
More like : If they want to F . with their
customers then their customers may want to
pay them back if they get a chance .
(Cir[ui t C ity Fo rum)
i 76 rep lies
(la tes t repl ies )
Inte resting Empl oy ees
(Wa lg reens forum)
0 repl i es
(latest r eplies)
shopl i fting
(walgreens forum)
5 repl ies
( la te st repl i e s)
Great p ost from HD Forum
( Your favo urite type o f c
( Cowes Fo r um)
3 replies
( latest rep lies )
A ll fo rums
Who’s online
T h ere are curre n tly 1 7 use rs
a nd 77 gue s t s on l ine
Online users
Haggi
happyone
Ruin-Nation
ODCST
zsh
Shrinky
BlindsGirl
moblus8
Robber Baron
drucco99
LazyOne
Hamster
rid
9W bh5X4Kfy
HDMN
urathug
yeraC1951
Read our feed
Target’s lawyers are out and about issuing cease & desist
letters.
edit: More information – Our first Cease & Desist, courtesy
of Target
login or register to post comments
Target Sucks .. wrote:
I’m not bringing up p. 2 of Kerrys letter . My
machine or didn’t it post?
Your machine, I suppose, as I can view it in its entirety and
I’ve heard no other complaints .
sleK Says: Assuming that you’re the same “Target Sucks” that’s been
rnu, 07/27/2006 – posting the AP Directives everywhere, could you explain the
11 51pm significance of them or explain why you appear rather hellbent
on keeping them in the public domain?
I don’t understand either the relevance or the purpose and I
haven’t been able to find a suitable explanation .
sleK Says :
Fn , 07/28/2006 –
12 33am
Ok, so it is just disclosure for the sake of disclosure .
Quote:
BTW : Thought you caved in ra ther quickly on
that .
Well, if there was some point to it I’d probably be willing to
help. But, as it appears that there’s really no cause and
you’re just stirring the pot to see the water go ’round,
there’s no reason for me to get involved .
login or register to post comments
Quote :
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 19 of 29
login or register to post comme n ts
Fair enough, but surely you understand how unreasonable it
is to expect site ops’, like myself, to support your apparent
grudge when faced with the costly prospect of litigation?
Quote:
It may have taken 3 yrs but Tarbutt is spending
some cash trying to put the genie back in the
internet bottle .
It’s a beautiful thing . Once it’s out there it’s out there .
login or register to post comments
sleK Says :
Fri, 07/28/2006 –
6 52pm Quote:
I would only opine that it seems to say that
once info is published that is the end of
confidentiality .
That may be so but it doesn’t dissolve liability.
IANAL, but it appears to me that an entity needs only to
establish the economic value of the information and
demonstrate “reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy” of
the information before injunctive relief and damages can be
granted.
Quote:
Gee Slick, a 33 year old female ski bum ran
right over you I I I !
Is this addressed to me?
Look, I’m just trying to help as it’s pretty clear that you
haven’t the faintest clue about what you’re getting yourself
into .
The simple fact is that you may end up in court, facing
whatever injunctive relief and damages that Target puts on
the table, should Target choose to pursue you . From
experience, I can tell you that it’s not a fun place to be . But,
if you’re intent on finding out for yourself, keep it up and
good luck.
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 20 of 29
Target’s Lawyers are monitoring this web site!
Main Menu
Home
11′ Ask the Rep
p Union Info
Forum
13 Blogs
d Chat
° News Feeds
P Create Content
° Recent Posts
V Site Map
a Site Stats
13 About This Site
Contact Us Comme nt viewi ng options
User {ogin Jflat list -expanded :rDa#e -oldest first .T 1 0 comments per page :-1j ;
Save settings
S elect your preferre d way to d ispl ay th e commen ts a n d click “Save se ttings” to activa t e your changes
fag in
∎ Create new account
∎ Reques t new password
login or register to post comments
Get Organized
Contact us to get more
Info about organizing your
store
Ask the Rep
∎ A potential problem
∎ Tec h n i cal
S up port/Trainer
∎ Target
∎ fired from target
∎ Unfai r treatment
∎ Hors e play t ur n ed lawful ?
∎ Do I lose shift
differential? EXHIBIT D
Forum topics
Posted by
Rockta ne
Put yourself in Target’s place : one of your ex-employees has
posted on a website confidential proprietary information about
The Target Stores Employees’ Web Site
Home » Forum N Workplace Issues » General Co nversation
Posted by Target Sucks – at 2006-07-28 08 : 38
This site is being monitored by the Faegre Benson law firm on behalf of Target Stores .
The screen name used is normally ‘bunkl’ and this person is Kerry L . Bundy of the law
firm of Faegre Benson 612 766 8217. kbundy@faegre .com .
He and his firm are monitoring this web site for anti Target activities .
FYI : http ://www.retail-worker.com/documents/20060727 .target cease_and_desist .pdf
and their web site is www .Faegre .com
pri nt er friendly page
Username :
Password :
Posted by This is horrible news . I hope this site does not give up your
jollyrancher information . Shameful of them to even ask . It’s one thing to ask
Fn, 2006-07-28 to have your post removed, but I’m sure there is some sort of
11 :08 privacy act . A million scurges on Mr . Bundy and Faegre Benson
Law firm.
Fast answers
from union reps
∎ direct deposit
∎ ETL Round-Robin
interview
∎ 8 hours between shifts
Posted by The link above refers to a different site, not this one, and the
Rocktane document in question is confidential proprietary information, not
Fri, 2006-07-28 anything to do with organizing or union activities . I’m sure they
12 :56 check this site also, as you would expect if there’s a risk that a
disgruntled employee or ex-employee might be revealing
company secrets . I’m shocked that anyone would be surprised
by this .
l ogi n or reg is ter to po s t comment s
f Posted by I guess it doesn’t surprise me that they monitor the site . But to
i jollyrancher sic their attorneys on someone. After my experience at Target
Fri, 2006-07-28 and seeing the Nazi behavior there, I hate everything about it .
13 :17 And any company that would work for them . Plague on them all
for supporting a company tha treats people so poorly .
login or reg iste r to post c omments
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 21 of 29
—— —
Fri, 2006 -07- 28
j 13 :40
log i n or register to post comments
login or regis t er to post comments
Do I want to pursue
becoming an etl~~~ help
me out
(General Conversation)
4 replies
(latest reply)
2 min 9 sec ago
ad takedown
(General Conversation)
1 replies
(latest reply)
8 min 40 sec ago
∎ Mi[ch Stover’s
Distribution Roundtable
(Target Distribution
Center)
32 replies
(latest reply)
2 hours 25 min ago
∎ Target’s Lawyers are
monitoring this web site
(General Conversation)
21 replies
(latest reply)
2 hours 32 min ago
∎ Target Wal-Mart Liter
(wages and benefits)
19 replies
(latest reply)
1 day 18 hours ago
∎ Target Sucks message
board
(Announcements and
Information)
14 replies
(latest reply)
1 day 19 hours ago
Posted by
Rocktane
Fri, 2006 – 07-28
15 :55
logi n or re gi ster to post comments
All forums
Who’s online
there are currently I user
and 26 guests online
Online users
∎ accidentallyhere
Syndication
login or register to po st commen ts
~— –
Poste d by
–__1
New Topics
∎ ad takedown
(General Conversation)
(1 reply)
∎ Do I want to pursue
becoming an etl’77 help
me out
(General Conversation)
(4 replies)
vacation hours
(wages and benefits)
(1 reply)
∎ Target’s Lawyers are
monitoring t’gis web site’
(General Conversation)
(21 replies)
Post-Interview Question
(General Conversation)
(0 replies)
Most Recently
Commented
the inside operations of a business you own, which, as one of
your employees, they signed an agreement not to reveal, and
which could cost your company millions of dollars . Y don’t know
if such an offense would be legally prosecutable, but at would
certainly warrant pressure to stop it. I would expect you to pull
out all the stops . What is different about Target
Posted by I can see Target’s side I guess, but then maybe they shouldn’t
i jollyrancher treat people so poorly . I think they are a shitty company and
Fn, 2006-07-28 they and anyone that they retain, are one in the same, bastards .
i 15 :30 This lawfirm should be embarrassed to be associated with
Target.
jollyrancher wrote :
I can see Target’s side !guess, but then maybe they
shouldn’t treat people so poorly . I think they are a
shitty company and they and anyone that they
retain, are one in the same, bastards . This lawfirm
should be embarrassed to be associated with Target .
I agree that Target should not treat people badly . Nor should
any other company, in an ideal world . I am apparently lucky in
that I have not had your negative experience ; Target has
treated me pretty well . I’ve had a couple of GLs that required
me to use my diplomatic skills to get along with, and once or
twice I was denied a day off that I had requested, but otherwise,
I have no real complaints . I get chills when I think how I almost
got stuck working at a focal assembly plant when the Target DC
was having its job fair. That place would have been a nightmare
if they’d hired me ; just the few days I worked there as a temp
creeped me out for weeks . Thank god Target hired me ; there is
nothing they’ve thrown at me yet that I couldn’t handle, or that
even approached some of the crap I’ve had to put up with at
other places . Obviously, it must be a lot different in your neck of
the woods .
~ Posted by I think it probably does have a lot to do with what part of the
jollyrancher country you are in . Certain people get into power and become
Fn, 2006-07-28 control freaks and make everyone miserable . And because of
16:06 that, sites like this form and people leak out sensitive info . V
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 22 of 29
Target Sucks –
Fri, 2006-07-28
17 :04
Firefox is a free, open
source web browser that’s
way better than Internet
Explorer
login or register to post comments
i Posted by Duly noted on the gender of Kerry . I went off of the original
jollyrancher post . Even worse in my opinion for a woman to represent such a
i Fn, 2006-07-28 selfish company That is funny about trying to keep the genie in
17:18 the bottle. LOL
login o r re gi ster to p ost comments .
Posted by
Target Sucks –
XML is a way t o gather
we b s i te he adlines without
visi t in g the site You can
use a p rogr am like
F eed R eader o r a web
b rows e r like Fire Fo x
~^ GEi F I REFO X
Ci
jollyran icher wrote:
This is horrible news . I hope this site does not give
up your information . Shameful of them to even ask .
It’s one thing to ask to have your post removed, but
I’m sure there is some sort of privacy act . A million
scurges on Mr . Bundy and Faegre Benson haw firm .
[b]
As pointed out by another poster the site threatened is the 2
retailworker .com sites ( & retail-worker.com) I also noted that
one site on which this was posted is now closed down with no
prior notice .
As far as I know it was posted on this site by another poster and
even prior to that it was emailed to me and it was put onto
several sites .
I believe that the OP here and the owner of the TS site closed
were both employees of T, but I don’t know that for certain, well
1 I don’t know for certain . I doubt that either of them are still T
employees .
As to whether or not said info is in some form ‘protected’, I have
no idea and don’t care . I saw it both online already posted and
via email and if someone at T let the cat out of the bag then that
is between T and them . I didn’t sign any confidentiality
agreement with them and really don’t give a rats ass if they like
it or not .
My private opinion, and I am not an atty, is that once someone
else posted it online it was free for anyone to copy or repast . I
think there may be some sort of constitutional argument there
about ‘free speach’ or some such BS but I will leave it to more
smarter people than me to look into that .
All I can predict is that other nice people, like those reading this,
will probably copy it and repost it on other sites, so the people at
Faegre Benson will be quite busy trying to get the genie back
into the Internet bottle .
BTV1f : Kerry L. Bundy is a ‘she’ (W/F/33) not as initially identified
as a ‘he’ . Take a look at :
http ://www .Faegre.com/lawyer_bio .aspx7pid=7371
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 23 of 29
Not surprisingly, there are advantages and disadvantages to
using trade secret protection to secure different types of
business assets. Deciding whether to patent certain technology –
or keep it under wraps as a trade secret – is often a tough
strategic call . Usually, the decision rests on the type of
information that needs to be protected .
Most intellectual property owners find the indefinite time limit of
trade secret protection appealing, assuming that the information
can be maintained in confidence and not easily replicated in the
market. For example, say that the knowledge you wish to protect
is a manufacturing process . If you patent the process, you get
protection for about twenty years . Even though your competitors
know exactly what you’re doing, they can’t copy your process
when your patent expires, however, it’s open season on that
technology .
By contrast, if you rely on trade secret protection to secure your
process, your protection lasts forever, as long as the process
Fri, 2006-07-28 jollyrancher wrote :
17 :27
Duly noted on the gender of Kerry . I went off of the
original post . Even worse in my opinion for a woman
to represent such a selfish company . That is funny
about trying to keep the genie in the bott le. LOL
Here is a longish brief on info confidentiality . A casual reading by
me seems to suggest that once info is published it looses its
confidential trade secret status . Take a read and inform yourself
on the issue :
An Ove rview of Trade Secret Pro tection
Can you keep a secret?
That’s the challenge for intellectual property owners who rely on
trade secret protection to secure their sensitive business assets .
Unlike patents, most copyrighted works, and trademarks – which
must be publicly disclosed in order to seek recourse from
competitors who want to stea l them — trade secrets have legal
value only to the extent that they stay secret .
File a patent on a new chemical or drug, and you can enjoy
exclusive legal rights for about 20 years (often less in practical
market terms) . As long as you keep trade secrets away from
prying eyes, however, they last forever . The trade-off Once
they’re out, they’re gone . A no-longer-secret trade secret enjoys
essentially no legal protection under trade secret laws .
Just about anything can qualify as a trade secret – formulae,
computer programs, business methods, database information,
customer lists – basically, any knowledge that has economic
value because people such as competitors don’t know about it
and could profit from it if they did . It doesn’t necessarily have to
be new, different, or unique, as you would expect from patented
material and/or even fixed in a tangible form, as with
copyrighted works . As long as the information has value because
no one else knows about it – and you take reasonable efforts to
avoid disclosure – it can qualify as a trade secret .
Pros a nd Cons
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 24 of 29
Protecting Your Trade Secrets
How do you take reasonable efforts to protect your trade
secrets Here are a few key stepsremains
secret. However, if a competitor is able to replicate the
process (without stealing your information), such as through
reverse engineering, they’re free to do so at a ny time, and there
is usually little or nothing you can do about it . So the question
your business faces is : how vulnerable is your knowledge to
being replicated or discovered by others The answer will shape
the kind of IP protection you’re likely to seek .

Misappropriation
Unlike patents and copyrights that are governed by federal law,
trade secret protection derives primarily from state law . The
origins of trade secret doctrine date all the way back to a
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in 1868, and
while numerous courts (including federal courts) have weighed
in on specific aspects of trade secret law ever since, no federal
civil legislation has ever tackled trade secrets directly . Instead,
trade secret laws have been enacted on a state-by-state basis .
Minnesota was the first state to adopt the Uniform Trade Secret
Act (UTSA) in 1980, and more than forty other states have since
followed suit . The UTSA was adopted in the wake of an
increasing reliance by businesses on trade secret protection and
a desire to codify common law trade secret principles .
Distilled to its essence, under the UTSA and most state
interpretations, the existence of a trade secret is established
using a two-fold test . First, you must have knowledge or
information that derives independent economic value from not
being generally known or readily ascertainable . Second, you
must have taken reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of
the knowledge or information . In that circumstance, the llTSA
provides protection by prohibiting the “misappropriation” of
trade secrets and providing various remedies, including
injunctive relief and damages .
“Misappropriation” covers both obtaining trade secrets through
improper means and disclosing or using them without consent .
The UTSA also casts a broad net to include not only actual
misappropriation (where the theft or disclosure has actually
occurred), but also “threatened” misappropriation (which some
courts have held to include events such as a key employee
bolting to a competitor and putting a trade secret at serious risk
of disclosure) .
What kinds of actions or circumstances create the greatest risk
for trade secret owners Consider the following :
One of your employees or independent contractors who has
knowledge of your trade secrets leaves to join one of your
competitors
One of your suppliers or distributors also works for a key
competitor
One of your licensees, customers, business partners, or
employees decides to start a competing business
You disclose your confidential information to a prospective
business partner, and the deal fails through
This is not an exhaustive list, just a sample of the many ways in
which day-to-day business dealings put your trade secrets at
risk of misappropriation
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 25 of 29
Extend the security procedures to computer systems . Obviously,
trade secrets stored in electronic format are particularly
susceptible to theft . The entire subject of information systems
security may warrant a thorough review by the organization, to
minimize the possibility of external “hacking” or internal security
breaches. The same care regarding access and labeling that is
extended to physical space or documentation, should extend to
computer systems where trade secrets are stored .
Be mindful of third parties . If business associates, prospective
customers, or members of the public have access to facilities in
which trade secrets are stored or used, take particular care to
avoid inadvertent disclosure . This might include accidents
(where documents are left carelessly in open view) or even
deliberate but unintentional disclosures (such as tour guides or
other employees who inform visitors about the project or
process within the facility) .
Screen speeches and publications where appropriate . Trade
secrets often wind up being disclosed unintentionally at trade
shows or in magazine articles, publications, press releases, or
speeches . Engineers, marketing executives, mid-level managers,
and others may exchange ideas with colleagues or share
information publicly because they are unaware of its sensitivity .
Put it in writing . Consider keeping a written statement of your
trade secret security policy . This provides two advantages . Fir st,
” unwritten rules” may wind up being laxly or inconsistently
enforced within the organization . Second, documented trade
secret pol icies provide evidence in court of the seriousness of
the company ‘s efforts to protect its secrets .
Let your employees know . A proper trade secret protection plan
should make employees aware of the confidentiality of certain
information and, where appropriate, periodically remind them of
thei r obligations to keep that information secure . This would
include hav ing employees counter-sign wr itten confidentiali ty
agreements. In addition, companies should consider conducting
“exit interviews ” with departing employees that i nclude a written
reminder of their ongoing responsibility to keep trade secret
information secure .
Restrict access . “Sorry, that information is on a need-to-know
basis.” Where appropriate, keep trade secret information
physically separate from nonproprietary information, and restrict
access only to those who genuinely require it . Depending on the
nature of the intellectual property, this segregation may be as
simple as keeping information in a separate filing cabinet, or it
may necessitate building an entirely separate and secure facility .
Implement physical security. Consider providing additional
security for the information through locked doors, gates, and
cabinets. Again, the level of physical security will vary depending
on the nature of the information and how the information is used
in the business operations .
Consider labeling trade secret documentation . It can be very
easy to reproduce, scan, and distribute documents today . Not
only should documentation related to trade secret information be
treated with special care, but in appropriate circumstances, it
may be prudent to label trade secret documents as “SECRET” or
“CONFIDENTIAL .” A company may also want to educate its
employees who have access to such documents about their
status, including the sensitivity of and destruction of trade secret
documents .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 26 of 29
login or registe r to post comments
1 2 3 next page last page
One tool for reducing this risk is implementing a policy of prescreening
all public communications .
Protect yourself with contracts . The nature of many businesses
may require a company to disclose its trade secrets to potential
buyers, licensees, joint venture partners, or other outsiders .
When engaging in these kinds of third-party transactions,
consider monitoring the flow of information carefully and
documenting the nature of the trade secrets exposed and the
specific limited use to which they may be put . This may include
specific confidentiality agreements with the third parties.
When properly identified and secured, trade secrets can often be
the most powerful of the various forms of intellectual property
protection, given the indefinite lifespan they can offer . Trade
secret owners can also obtain swift and dramatic relief in court if
they act quickly and have taken care along the way to document
and follow their trade secret protection plan . But trade secrets
are, by their very nature, fragile . A secret only has value to the
extent you can keep it a secret .
And in case you wondered who wrote this it is our pal Ms . Kerry
L Bundy the 33 yr old ski bunny from Mn .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 27 of 29
Targ et Corporation
1000 Nictollet Mail
ASCIGIVED
JUL yl 4Y11
EXHIBIT E
Certificate of Registration
DO NOT WIMTE ABOVE THIS LMIl. IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE,US ! A SEPARATE CWrM)ATION Sam.
TITLE orrH1s woxx
Target AP Directives
agfft of Txwt Cc ;rp, dated
8IS /h filet; iti LIB .
EXAMINED BY FoRbf TX
CHECKED BY
CORRESPONDENCE FOR
COPYR IGHT
Yes OFFICE
USE
ONLY
mane s en, aca ro neon
2200 Wells Frrgo Center, 90 South 7th S tree t
Minneapolis, MN 55402
~~~~~ 611-766-8508
&
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 29 of 29

# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 3:02 PM 0 comments

# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 6:39 AM 0 comments
Monday, June 12, 2006

Target v. Handicapped!

I found this on another blog site and reproduce it here F.Y.I., I have no idea if the matter discussed happened or not but you can read and decide for yourself. (Note: Not responsible for strong language in this post):
============================================

Mon 11 Sep 2006 Target Targets Handicapped, We Target Them

Digg this story.

Let’s just cut straight to the point: Fran, store manager of the Target located at 1245 Bald Hill Rd. in Warwick, Rhode Island? She’s a cunt.

If that seems harsh to you, we can only say we wish there was a word in the English language that was even harsher.

Reader Lexi H. wrote us in with an absolutely appalling tale about how her elderly, handicapped mother was treated by Fran at the local Target. Her mother — a plucky old gal who requires oxygen and a wheelchair — was puttering around the Warwick Target in one of the electric handicapped carts when the battery died.

Lexi and her mother understood: these things suck, but they happen. What shouldn’t happen is for the manager of the store to then rush out to verbally abuse and publicly embarrass an elderly, crippled old woman. Yet that’s just what did happen.

We’re fucking spitting mad over this one. In fact, we’re putting out the call. We want you to read Lexi’s story and then call Target to complain. Don’t be rude, don’t be a jerk, but we want you to call Target, mention Fran by name and register your disgust with a company that would treat any patron — let alone someone’s sweet, wheelchair-bound mother — so completely inhumanely.

The Warwick, Rhode Island telephone number is (401) 821-0121. Corporate HQ seems to be 800-591‑3869 (don’t press or say anything to get a human). Mention the store name, address and Fran by name.

And while you’re at it, mention that Peter is a great Target employee, and should get a ribbon, if not Fran’s fucking job.

Read Lexi’s email, after the jump:
==========================
I am writing about a truly disturbing experience I had today at the Target store located at 1245 Bald Hill Rd. in Warwick, RI. My mother uses oxygen and a wheelchair, and it is hard for her to get about and go shopping. Today as a special treat, we decided to go to Target. We arrived at the store at about 12:30 pm, and I dropped her off at the door, and went to park the car. When I got inside the store, she was standing inside looking for a MartCart, one of the electric carts that most big box stores have to make shopping possible for handicapped patrons. There wasn’t one available, so we went and ate lunch in the cafe and waited until one became available. A patron who was using it left, and my mother got in it and we entered the store itself. About 20 feet into the store, the battery on the cart died. I went back to the front of the store where the carts are kept, to see if another MartCart had become available. While I stood there, a friendly and helpful employee named Peter came over to ask if I needed assistance. I must add here that Peter seemed to be mentally disabled, which in no way was a problem or an issue at all- he was delightful and very kind during the horrorshow that our visit became.
I told Peter that the battery in the MartCart had failed, and he walked with me to where my mother was sitting in the dead cart. He looked at the cart, and agreed that the battery had died. He was about to say something else, when from about 25 feet away, another Target employee began yelling “Is there a problem?” Peter walked toward the yelling woman, to explain what had happened. Meanwhile, she began walking towards us. I noted that her nametag said Fran.

As she approached, she continued yelling. Peter was telling her that the battery had died, and she approached my mother and I by yelling (quite literally yelling) “I don’t know what you want me to do, I can’t shop for you.” My mother said quietly that that wasn’t what she wanted at all, but Fran cut her off by yelling again “There’s nothing I can do for you, what do you want?” My mother said “I am not deaf, please stop yelling.” Fran lowered her voice fractionally, and said again “I can’t shop for you.”

At this point, Peter, who as I say was differently abled but with a heart of gold, said that the cart needed to be charged. Fran ignored him and very aggresively and loudly said “I don’t have a wheelchair, what do you want me to do, push you around in that?” pointing at the non-operative cart. My mother looked shaken, and said “It is humiliating enough to need help to shop, please stop talking so loudly.” Fran’s yelling was, in fact, attracting interested stares from other shoppers.

Peter again said that the cart needed to be charged, and I asked him how long that took, hoping to somehow salvage the day. He said it takes 7 or 8 hours to fully charge the carts, adding that it was usually done overnight. I said then, “Well, how long does a full charge last? It’s just past noon, how many people can actually use it if it takes 8 hours to charge and only lasts till noon?” Peter replied that he didn’t know how many trips around the store the cart could make on one full charge, but that it had not been plugged in earlier. At this, Fran began haranguing Peter, saying that the cart had been fully charged and had been plugged in that morning. He started to say again that it had not, and she cut him off yelling (again) that it had been charged, and that she didn’t know what we wanted. He looked very distressed, as I think we all were, and I said to my mother who looked on the verge of tears “Let’s go.” She nodded, and I removed from the cart the few items (from the rack immediately inside the store) that we had chosen. I went to put them on the shelf, and Fran snatched them out of my hand. I said to Peter “Thank you,” and then to Fran “You’ve very unpleasant, and I will be writing to the manager.” She said again, aggresively, “There’s nothing I can do.” She did not, at that point, tell me that she was the store manager. I helped my mother to the door, which thankfully was only about 20 feet away, and ran to fetch the car. My mother and I left the store.

In the 8 years that my mother has been disabled, never have I seen anyone treat her in such a way. Fran’s behavior was so shocking that I am still shaking with disbelief. Not only was she aggressive and abusive, she was mocking and seemed to think that if you have one disability, you probably have another, given that even after my mother pointed out that she was not deaf, Fran kept yelling at her. Fran’s treatment of her employee, Peter, was similarly astonishing. At no point in this ugly experience did Fran apologize for the store’s lack of handicapped accomodation, or make any effort in the least to be pleasant, conciliatory, or even simply humane. She seemed in fact to be angry and aggrieved to have to deal with a customer of different needs. I have never met anyone who seems to get their kicks by abusing the handicapped, and I am more disturbed than words can say. That my mother should be a one time target of Fran’s abuse is horrifying to me, but upon further reflection, that her employees are treated in such a disparaging manner is equally disturbing, especially considering that Target receives public recognition for their diversity of staff.

I took my mother to WalMart, where she had her choice of 4 MartCarts, and we did some shopping. The moment I got home, I called the store, and asked to speak with the manager, as I had a complaint. I was transferred to a woman named Coila, and told her what had happened. She seemed horrified, and sounded aghast. I asked her if I could have Fran’s last name, as I wanted to write to the corporate headquarters as well, and wanted to make sure that no other Fran would be involved. Coila told me that she couldn’t tell me Fran’s last name, and then she told me that Fran was the store manager. I think I stopped breathing for a minute. Coila then gave me the guest services phone number, and I spoke with another helpful employee named Evie, and told her of the distrubing experience.

I cannot adequately express the horror I feel at what happened this afternoon. It was truly one of the most upsetting experiences I have ever had, to stand helplessly by as my wheelchair bound mother and a mentally challenged worker were verbally lambasted by a yelling woman, the public face of a major corporation. I have always enjoyed shopping at Target, as has my mother. As I am sure you understand, going out to Warwick and going to Target is always something of an expedition for us, but it has always been an enjoyable experience. What happened today was so deeply disturbing, and I felt compelled to write this letter to let people know about the situation at the Warwick RI Target store.

read more:

Comments
homerjay says:

I started reading this email thinking “There’s got to be more to this story. There’s always two sides.” Now I’m thinking that this woman is simply a total bitch (Fran, I mean).

Still, I think its a little unfair of you to blame Target as a whole. its not as though they have poliicies in place to discriminate. They just hapeen to have one psycho working there that shouldn’t be.

Lastly, I REALLY hope for Peter’s sake that he actually IS handicapped, because if he isn’t his friends and coworkers are going to have a FIELD DAY with this email.

09/11/06 07:57 AM
John Brownlee says:

Target is, de facto, responsible for the behavior of its employees. Fran is a paid, managerial representative of Target. If they don’t stand by what they did, they can make that clear.

09/11/06 08:05 AM
Jesse McBesse says:

Homer – I thought the exact same things about Peter!! ha.

Get ready, Fran, cuz I’m SO calling your ass today…

09/11/06 09:03 AM
homerjay says:

oh absolutely, but don’t blame Target YET. Give them a chance to react first.

09/11/06 09:10 AM
Brianron says:

***DEVIL’S ADVOCATE ALERT***

Along the line of what Homerjay wrote, there are two sides to every story. Unlike the now-infamous Vinney Ferrari call, we have no information regarding this incident other than Lexi’s version. Let’s assume for the moment that what Lexi wrote is not wholly truthful and is greatly exaggerated.

Then you have given your readers the telephone numbers to call to further an exaggerated or false complaint about Fran. This will create a lot of problems for Fran, and potentially create some bad publicity about your blog.

I don’t know if Lexi’s version of events is accurate or not. But, in my experience, workers do not usually just immediately go ballistically mental for no reason. I have a suspicion that Lexi and/or her mother may not have been as polite as she has described. This would not excuse impolite behavior, but it would put it in a different light.

09/11/06 09:11 AM
boy says:

I’ve worked a customer service job or two in the past, and I quickly learend you NEVER treat a customer that way, unless they’re threatening bodily harm or breaking the law in a serious way.

I highly doubt Lexi or her grandmother did either of those, so there is absolutely no excuse for Fran’s behavior. Fran’s side of the story doesn’t matter in the least.

No matter what, I’m taking bets that by the end of the week fran = fired. I have faith in Target doing the right thing.

09/11/06 09:25 AM
Ran Kailie says:

What I would suggest that people put in a complain to Target is that they should investigate the allegations, because if this did happen its very serious.

I’ve shopped at target for several years now, and while I have experienced the occasional disinterested staff member I’ve never had anyone who was rude, even when I had a 8 year old with me who upon trying clothing on in the dressing room broke out in hives. Staff then was very helpful and pleasant, the manager even GAVE me a tube of benadryl cream for her.

But I think if this story is to be verified then perhaps the other employee involved, Peter should be spoken to for his side.

But I will definately file a complaint with Target in hopes that will react to this, but I also already feel Target does quite a bit to promote a welcoming feeling to everyone shopping in their stores.

09/11/06 09:27 AM
John Brownlee says:

Let’s suppose for a second you’re correct, and that completely reasonable sounding Lexi and her invalid mother are, in fact, gorgons from hell. Does that still justify the treatment she got? Does that make the complaint of Target not helping a crippled woman ring any less true?

We’re not telling people to boycott Target, or blow up Fran’s car. We’re telling them to call, complain and let them know exactly what they heard.

On our part, we get hundreds of complaints a week. We’ve got a pretty good bullshit detector. Lexi’s story has none of the delusional self-justification of some of the rants we’ve seen and called out. We have no reason to disbelieve her. Her email sounds calm, rational, articulate and hurt. Emails that trip our bullshit detector are none of those. If Lexi’s experience is wildly different than she claims, I would be amazed.

What you seem to be claiming is that we shouldn’t be outraged by companies when the evidence is anecdotal, or aim to do something about it.

Look, you guys aren’t fucking sheep… if you read it, think there’s some other interpretation, then hell, or we’re off base, hell, don’t call. But there’s zero reason to believe Lexi is lying here. And if she isn’t lying, she and her mother deserve, at the very least, some sort of apology for what happened. Call us cynics, but we’ve been doing this long enough to know that apology basically never comes unless it goes public and people get loud enough.

09/11/06 09:34 AM
DeeJayQueue says:

lets take a couple things into account, but with a grain of salt:

1. I don’t see a date as to when they were shopping, but I’d assume it was within the past week or so. This is Back To School time, which for a retailer like Target is second only to christmas in it’s insanity and level of stress for the employees.

Imagine (literally) thousands of kids screaming around in the store looking for that one elusive thing that the teachers all say they NEED to have or else they can’t learn right. Imagine the self-entitled soccer moms and dads getting all huffy and puffy with the staff and management “What do you MEAN there are no more erasermates left? How will little bobby WRITE with no ERASERMATES???” It’s a tremendously stressful time all around.

I’m not saying this excuses Fran’s behavior at all, but it may shed some light on the reason her fuse was so short. You don’t get to be the manager of a store like that without having gone through a few of these battles, but everyone has a breaking point.

2. As mentioned above, all we have is one side of the events, and of course it’s going to be painted as “we were totally innocent and this chick was a cunt.” She was probably pretty rude, and that’s not excuseable, but it’s still probably not the whole story.

09/11/06 09:49 AM
Magister says:

Devil Advocate again – When was the last time you read a consumer complaint where you heard the complainant admit they might have asked for a little too much?

She might only be writing what she remembers. She might have asked for another cart, then when rebuffed, said ‘What are we supposed to do now?’ That could have started the manager off by saying there was nothing I could do.

Now if our letter writer was already upset, she would take that much harsher than someone not involved in the situation. It is entirely possible this is a case where TWO parties got a little heated when they didn’t need to.

Or imagine if our little slow helper said to the manager ‘They seem really mad’ or something stupid like that. That could also start her.

Do we assume all the evidence presented is 100% true? Nope, we never should.

Lots of knee jerking on this site.

09/11/06 09:49 AM
castlecraver says:

Not too harsh. We Americans sorely underutilize that wonderful c-word.

09/11/06 09:49 AM
Pelagius says:

I’m with the “two sides to every story” crowd and think some effort should be made to contact Fran to hear what she has to say before a jihad is launched on her.

09/11/06 09:51 AM
Greg P says:

This comes hot on the heels of the ADA v target.com suit being allowed to proceed.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/multimedia-online-internet/20060&#8230;

09/11/06 09:59 AM
Pelagius says:

I have to side with the “two sides” crowd here. Some effort should be made to contact Fran and hear what she has to say on this before a fatwa is issued. But I s’pose that’s the key difference between blogging and journalism.

09/11/06 10:00 AM
mfergel says:

I find it highly unlikely that a manager simply walked up and started complaining/yelling to customers. Sounds like a he said/she said scenario expect that we haven’t heard the other side of the story.

Personally, I’d rather hear it from Peter’s point of view.

09/11/06 10:07 AM
John Brownlee says:

Ben’s calling her now. Not sure we’ll get anything out of it, but you never know.

09/11/06 10:11 AM
Ben Popken says:

Fran’s on vacation. The operator “doesn’t think Peter can help me” and manager Matt says all reporter requests have to go through corporate. He “put me on hold” to find their number and hung up on me. Meh.

09/11/06 10:22 AM
Brianron says:

John Brownlee:
Your call
The point isn’t that this activity, if it happened as Lexi described, should go unpunished — it shouldn’t. And if it is anywhere close to what she described, Fran should be fired. The point is that it should be investigated rather than there being a rush to judgment based on “mob rule” led by one side of the issue.

It is one thing for your blog to present these anecdotal incidents to show what has happened and how the corporations do or do not respond (i.e., AOL). And it is quite another thing for you to rally the troops to become actively involved. After all, rightly or wrongly, Fran’s job is in the balance.

09/11/06 10:31 AM
Ben Popken says:

Reached Matt, got a number for a corporate relations person, left a message with her.

09/11/06 10:36 AM
Triteon says:

I agree with hearing both sides, right up until one side chooses not to respond.

09/11/06 10:42 AM
Ben Popken says:

Posting audio shortly.

09/11/06 11:02 AM
AcilletaM says:

1. I don’t see a date as to when they were shopping, but I’d assume it was within the past week or so. This is Back To School time, which for a retailer like Target is second only to christmas in it’s insanity and level of stress for the employees.

OK, devil’s advocates, this being true, don’t you think this isn’t the time for a store manager to be on vacation?

09/11/06 11:11 AM
Yep says:

It’s Rhode Island. Everybody yells here. That and tailgating at high speed are state-wide pastimes.

09/11/06 11:13 AM
AcilletaM says:

Can’t wait, I have my pitchfork and torch at the ready!

09/11/06 11:14 AM
puffermedia says:

I live in RI, and have actually shopped at this Target (though I try to avoid this strip of road lately – mega-store, strip-mall hell!). To those of you who doubt this: Unfortunately, these kind of shrews (both male & female) are not uncommon in RI; a sort of undeserved discontent that seems to be pretty common around here, where everything is a huge hassle, and everything is a reason to complain. But this is just beyond the pale. Chances are, I’ll let them know I will avoid their store unless this piece-of-work is demoted to the person who chases shopping carts in the parking lot (and it’s a huge lot! on an incline!).

09/11/06 11:14 AM
Rectilinear Propagation says:

Unless Fran comes back with a version that’s very different from what’s in Lexi’s e-mail, I doubt hearing her side will change people’s opinion very much.

I will agree that we should be more careful when it comes to acting on information about individuals (as opposed to companies) since it could mean someone getting fired instead of just having to give out a coupon and an apology.

09/11/06 11:16 AM
Mary Marsala With Fries says:

I think the Devils’ Advocates are missing the point: Of course there shouldn’t be a jihad declared against Fran — and there won’t be by us; nobody’s talking about going to Warwick and setting Fran on fire here. It would be her employer who chose to take action or not, and they should absolutely investigate first.

But, should we, the general public, raise a horrendous stink until said employer agrees to investigate and do the right thing? Hells yes. Let’s not forget that this is corporate America, folks; sitting quietly and leaving it up to the suits is tantamount to surrender. Target should do something about it, and it IS our job to make them.
-M

09/11/06 11:26 AM
Kishi says:

But, in my experience, workers do not usually just immediately go ballistically mental for no reason.

I’ve worked for at least one manager who has, and frequently did, go ballistic on customers (and employees and vendors) for very, very minor reasons. Hence why I don’t work for her any more.

09/11/06 11:40 AM
cooper says:

surely “vacation” = admin leave.

09/11/06 11:48 AM
christy says:

Even without hearing the other side of the story, I am hard-pressed to think of a reason for a store manager to say “I can’t shop for you!” no matter the provocation.

And that phrase in particular seems like an odd thing to make up, if Lexi was indeed fabricating a story.

My bets are on Fran being a cunt.

09/11/06 12:02 PM
woodenturkey says:

“I find it highly unlikely that a manager simply walked up and started complaining/yelling to customers. Sounds like a he said/she said scenario expect that we haven’t heard the other side of the story.”
WHAT!!! Have you ever worked in retail before, I have seen managers do alot worse than this. Just because someone scanned barcodes long enough to get promoted that doesnt mean that they have the brain power to be a good leader / communicator. And saying that the Back to school crowd of kids was a stresser might be the cause is BS, what does she do a Christmas? Shoot kittens? If you cant handle the stress that comes with a high volume of customer in a short period of time GTF out of Target and lick envelopes.

09/11/06 12:10 PM
mfergel says:

<<<< >>>>>

Yeah, I’ve worked a lot of retail and typically, it’s the employees that receive the brunt of bad managers with the majority of managers telling the employee to do the dirty work,…..in this case, Fran telling Peter to tell the customer that “We can’t do your shopping for you.”

For me, honestly, if granny is in such bad shape, why wasn’t she traveling with, at the very least, her own wheelchair. What if there had been no motorized carts at Target that day? I’ve got nothing against people in wheel chairs or oxygen tanks (my Grandfather was in the same situation before he passed away last year) but too many people EXPECT these things. If in fact this happened, yeah, Fran does have some issues, but along the same line…..what did this women want Target to do?? Peter had already told them that it would take 7 hours to recharge.

Oh, and I hate it when people drop people off at the front door…..that’s why the handicap space is up front.

09/11/06 01:00 PM
Mike Smeen says:

I’ll agree that both sides should indeed be investigated. But the fact of the matter remains that in retail, it is your job to put up with customers. Even if the customers were rude, the customer is “always right.”

As a retail manager, your job is basically damage control for when these things predictably happen with your salespeople and cashiers. You need to be setting an example for how to deal with even the most irate customers.

09/11/06 01:31 PM
Ben Thoma says:

After reading all of the comments, I called the store to log a complaint. It does seem that Fran is a store manager, so I was directed to Target’s Guest Services hotline which was 800-440-0680, where a nice rep. took down all of the information and gave me an incident number.

Hopefully, the incident will be investigated further. With the limited time I’ve worked in retail, I know that even if the customer is wrong about something, you definitely want to work with them, as opposed to letting your emotions override your customer service. Even if Lexi were throwing a fit, the counter-response should never be yelling.

09/11/06 02:19 PM
etinterrapax says:

This sounds to me like another one of those instances when a manager failed to consider what her actions would sound like when relayed to a third party. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable customer expectation for there to be appropriate and functional devices to accommodate disabled patrons. I would think it unreasonable if a customer, upon finding that there were not such devices, demanded that management (or even an an associate) shop for her. However, it doesn’t sound as though this happened, and moreover, it would not be completely unheard-of for an associated to provide that kind of assistance. I did it more than once when I worked for HellMart. It comes down to providing reasonable alternatives, not standing there like a buttmunch and saying things like, “I don’t know what you want me to do,” and “I can’t do that.” And it doesn’t sound like it even crossed Fran’s mind to do that.

09/11/06 02:52 PM
SecureLocation says:

Maybe the manager got to believing Target’s hype and thinks she works at an exclusive, upscale boutique (the kind where customers like being abused) and not, you know, K-Mart with a bigger ad budget.

09/11/06 05:19 PM
Plasmafire says:

Maybe it was her time of the month….

But that’s still no excuse for her behaviour.

09/11/06 08:24 PM
breaker says:

This story seems almost too one-sided. I think it is extremely unlikely that the store manager would run up to a disabled customer in a wheelchair and start accosting her for all to see. And then she accosts her mentally challenged subordinate worker who was an absolute angel? What did she do next, pull a live puppy out and punt the thing across the store? I think we need to hear a 3rd party’s account of this or at least the other side of the story.
tips@consumerist.com

# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 6:39 PM 0 comments

Another Reason Why Target Stores SUCK!
Salvation Army Miffed at Target

Valerie Hoff Reports

Reported By: Valerie Hoff
Web Editor: Ian Stinson

Target is turning away non-profits because too many have asked to solicit donations at the stores.

The Salvation Army’s bell-ringers have often been seen outside Target and the chain’s competitors. They bring in $8.8 million a year in donations.

Now, Target stores are turning the Salvation Army away. Target stores were not available to comment on camera, but in a written statement said the following:

“If we continue to allow the Salvation Army to solicit, then it opens the door to other groups that wish to solicit our guests.”

It also said Target donates more than two million dollars a week to various communities.

# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 10:09 AM 0 comments
Sunday, June 11, 2006

Links to other sites that may interest you:
Below are links for various sites that might be of interest.

You might want to highlight/copy and take the whole list to your own computer file.
===========================================================

29 Page ‘Is Wal Mart Safe’ – Crime Report –
http://www.walmartcrimereport.com/report.pdf

A Target Site, but only 100 members –
http://bullseyebb.awardspace.com/index.php

Anti Wal Mart Site w/11,000 Users –
http://www.wallyworldsucks.com/

Anti Wal Mart Site, 4500 members –
http://www.walmart-blows.com/forum/index.php?sid=b934681dc89ad9f7a0384e21afb6b7ff

Anti Wal-Mart message board w/8 pages of links –
http://groups.msn.com/ABUSEDBYWALMART/home

Anti Wal-Mart Site –
http://www.walmart-blows.com/forum/index.php?sid=b934681dc89ad9f7a0384e21afb6b7ff

Anti Wal-Mart Site – Worth a Look –
http://walmartwatch.com/

AP/LP Site –
http://www.retailspy.com/

Attorney for Target Stores – Ms. K L Bundy –
http://www.faegre.com/lawyer_bio.aspx?pid=7371

Consumer Site – Look up your least favorite retail chain and see the complaints! –
http://www.badbusinessbureau.com

Consumer Site w/radio show has various message boards for complaints, based in Atlanta
http://www.clarkhoward.com

Find Out How Unions Rip You Off –
http://unionfacts.com/

Forums for 15+ retail chains, 27,000 Users –
http://www.retailworker.com/

Gen. Consumer Comp. site w/250+ Target complaints –
http://www.my3cents.com/

Great Retail Industry Site – Take a Look! –
http://retailindustry.about.com/od/lp/a/bl_hayes_theft.htm?rd=1

message board for those who have worked at Target –
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TargetSucks/?yguid=262065473

Site has 16+ forums for retail stores, an active site –
http://www.retailworker.com

Target as bad as Wal-Mart? You decide! –
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/35610/

Target Attys Cease & Desist Order for Directives –
http://www.retail-worker.com/documents/20060727.target_cease_and_desist.pdf

Target Employees’ Web Site –
http://www.targetunion.org/

Vetrans Against Target Policies –
http://www.uppins.com/target.html

Wal Marts Approach to Shoplifting –
http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/06/walmarts_latest_1.html

Want To Know Your IP Address?? –
http://www.lawrencegoetz.com/programs/ipinfo/

Web Site w/ forums for various retail chains, not very active, few members –
http://www.retail-worker.com/forum/index.php

29 Page Wal-Mart Crime Report
http://www.walmartcrimereport.com/report.pdf

About Me

Name:Target Stores Suck
Location:Pasadena, Calif.
interested in consumer related issues.

Friday, September 01, 2006


Kerry L. Bundy
Age: 35 (Mar. 71)

Home Address:
5428 Knox Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55419-1502
(612) 929-2917
Property Est Value: $285,000
Built: 1947, basement and detached
garage, purchased 11/16/01 from:
Vivian Sennott for $195,000, .14 acres
For a Photo of house and neighborhood, go to:


http://www13.co.hennepin.mn.us/HCPropertyMap/Birdseye.aspx?PID=2102824210077

Prior addresses:

KERRY L BUNDY
24 BIRNAMWOOD DR
BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 (952) 890-2273

KERRY L BUNDY
1205 LINCOLN AVE
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 (612) 377-1981

KERRY L BUNDY
Apt Complex
3150 EXCELSIOR BLVD
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 (952) 922-3062

KERRY BUNDY
13417 BRUNSWICK AVE S
SAVAGE, MN 55378

———————–
Relatives:
Bradley P. Bundy
Kimberly M. Bundy
Patricia M. Bundy
———————-

Partner, Faegre & Benson LLP
kbundy@faegre.com
+1 612-766-8217
Office Address:
Minneapolis Office
Faegre & Benson LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
Phone: 612-766-7000
Toll-Free: 800-328-4393
Fax: 612-766-1600

Practice Areas:

Litigation
Distribution and Franchise Litigation
Trade Secrets
International Arbitration
Complex Commercial Litigation

Experience:

Kerry Bundy is a partner in the business litigation department at Faegre & Benson in the Minneapolis office. She concentrates her practice on trade secret litigation and counseling, franchise and distribution litigation, international arbitration, and complex commercial litigation. She has represented manufacturers, franchisors, distributors, technology companies, and a variety of other domestic and foreign businesses in state and federal proceedings, as well as national and international arbitrations.

Kerry is a member of the Governing Committee of the American Bar Association Forum on Franchising. She has presented seminars at national conferences on franchise matters, including “The Essentials on Franchising,” and “System-Wide Change in the Franchise System.” She was selected as one of ten up-and-coming Twin Cities lawyers by Minnesota Lawyer magazine. Also, she currently serves on the Board of Directors for Courage Alpine Skiers, a non-profit adaptive down-hill skiing program for persons with disabilities.

Education:

BA, Colorado State University (1993), magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
JD, Northwestern University (1996), Dean’s List, Journal of International Law and Business (Editor-in-Chief)

Presentations:

Effective Opening Statements and Closing Remarks
American Bar Association Forum on Franchising CLE
Procedural Considerations for Filing a Franchise Complaint: Jurisidiction, Venue and Choice of Law
American Bar Association Forum on Franchising CLE
System-Wide Change: Rising to the Challenge
American Bar Association Forum on Franchising CLE
The Secrets to Winning Trade Secret Cases
Minnesota State Bar Association CLE
The Essentials of Franchising: Intellectual Property
American Bar Association Forum on Franchising CLE

Professional and Trade Associations:

American Bar Association Forum on Franchising, Steering Committee Member for the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Division (2003-2006)
American Bar Association Forum on Franchising, Young Lawyers Division Representative on the Governing Committee (2001-2003)
Hennepin County Bar Association, Civil Litigation Section co-chair

Civic Associations:
Board of Directors, Courage Alpine Skiers

Admitted to Practice (State)
Minnesota
Admitted to Practice (Federal)

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Thursday, August 31, 2006


Report: Wal-Mart loosens shoplifting policy
No. 1 retailer will only press charges if shoplifters take at least $25, in change to zero-tolerance policy.
July 13 2006: 7:22 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Wal-Mart is moving away from what it called a zero-tolerance policy on prosecuting shoplifters and will now only prosecute anyone caught taking merchandise worth $25 or more, according to a published report.

The New York Times reports the change in policy, citing internal documents from Wal-Mart that say it will now only press charges against those between the ages of 18 and 64 who take at least $25 worth of goods. Formerly its policy was to press charges against anyone who took at least $3 in goods.

Wal-Mart is reportedly changing its zero-tolerance policy on shoplifters.

The paper said the change in policy will allow Wal-Mart to concentrate on theft by professional shoplifters and its own employees. The paper said those two groups steal the bulk of merchandise from the chain.

“If I have somebody being paid $12 an hour processing a $5 theft, I have just lost money,” J. P. Suarez, who is in charge of asset protection at Wal-Mart, told the paper. “I have also lost the time to catch somebody stealing $100 or an organized group stealing $3,000.”

Wal-Mart told the paper it would closely track shoplifters it did not have arrested, and would ask that they be prosecuted after a second incident. It will also seek the prosecution of all suspected shoplifters who threaten violence or fail to produce identification, no matter how much they are trying to steal, according to the report, which said professional shoplifters often do not carry ID in order to avoid arrest.

The change will also put the company’s policy in line with most of its major competitors.

The paper said that the change also will answer complaints of small-town police departments across the country who have protested the previous zero-tolerance policy. At some stores police were making up to six arrests a day, according to the report, which said some departments had to hire extra officers just to handle the Wal-Mart arrests.

The paper said it was given the documents detailing the new policy by WakeUpWalMart.com, an anti-Wal-Mart group that told the paper it received the documents from a former employee at the chain who is unhappy with the new policy.

[url]http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/07/walmarts_shocki.html[/url][/b]

===================
[b]
July 13, 2006
Shoplifting At Wal-Mart

posted by Dan Filler

According to NY Times accounts, Wal-Mart has decided to cut shoplifters a bit of slack. If you’re under 18 or over 65, and try to swipe merchandise under $25 (and it’s your first time being caught by Wal-Mart security), they’ll give you a tough lecture and send you packing. Why the generosity? The article suggests – and this is surely true – that the local infrastructure (i.e., the cops and local prosecutors) don’t like to foot the bill for enforcing shoplifting laws. This raises some interesting questions.

First, should shoplifting be a crime? Probably, if only because if allowed to grow, it would (in aggregate) devastate retailing. Second, who should bear the cost of shoplifting enforcement? Perhaps the right answer is the retailer. Offenders are the logical payors, but they are often too poor to bear actual costs. And while society at large could pay the cost (and does, right now), it seems to me that it would be easier to impose the tax on the retailer. Why? Because, in many respects, the retailer is in the best position to reduce theft. Cameras, good layout, ever-present security all help reduce attempted thefts. If stores see that they save more than mere shrinkage by stopping shoplifting, perhaps they’ll introduce those preventive steps.

In my experience, shoplifting cases are a major source of docket junk in criminal courts. DA’s typically don’t care much about them. The victims – and there are real victims – are mostly corporations, and these corporations don’t get exercised like other victims. To the DA, the company’s face is the security guard who shows up to testify – and he or she is usually a low-paid worker bee who doesn’t much care the outcome of the case.

Sounds to me like Wal-Mart is just trying to get along better with the local community. Perhaps they should talk to Target, a leader in the national fight against crime, for tips.

Posted by Dan Filler at July 13, 2006 11:27 AM

[url]http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/07/walmarts_shocki.html [/url][/b]
=========================
[color=red]
The following two stories appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette on Thursday, December 30, 1999:

Wal-Mart Accused of Bias

Wal-Mart’s Shoplifting Policy

———————————–
[b]
Wal-Mart Accused of Bias

Witness says treatment of suspect racially motivated
By Gina Perales/The Gazette.

Gina Perales covers minority affairs and may be reached at 636-0198 or gperales@gazette. com
Edited by Jim Borden; headline by Barry Noreen

A 19-year-old suspected shoplifter was kicked in the chest, handcuffed, then dragged across the store by Wal-Mart employees who detained him Dec. 4, according to a witness who contends the incident was racially motivated.

The incident, complaints to store officials and inquiries by The Gazette prompted the company to investigate. Officials at the store at Platte Avenue and Chelton Road refused to comment, but corporate representatives denied employees acted improperly in subduing Keith Lawson of Colorado Springs.

Lawson was detained by store employees and accused of shoplifting cigarettes worth $5.50 around midnight, according to the summons issued to him.

The incident was witnessed by Joyce Green, 44, of Colorado Springs, a retired bank teller and customer service representative, who was shopping when she saw three employees run to the front of the store to help a plainclothes security guard.

Green, who said she watched from just six feet away, said the four wrestled with Lawson inside the store near the north entrance, pulling his gray jacket over his head “like a straightjacket,” and kicked him while he was on the ground.

Lawson is black and the store employees who restrained him are white.

The incident was “almost like a Rodney King thing,” Green said, referring to the beating of a black man by white police officers in Los Angeles in 1992.

Employees handcuffed Lawson and dragged him across the front of the inside of the store and into a Colorado Springs Police Department satellite station at the south entrance, where they waited for police, she said.

Green said she began to think race was an issue after overhearing a comment from an employee who helped restrain Lawson. According to Green, “He said, ‘I have had black people draw knives and guns and everything like that. All these black people come in here and try to steal.”’

Green told The Gazette she was so angered by what she saw and heard at the store that she confronted managers. A woman manager asked Green if she was related to Lawson. When Green asked why, the manager said, “Because you re black.”

“They were very hostile toward me,” she said. “They were going to charge me with trespassing.”

In interviews with The Gazette, Lawson, who is about 130 pounds and 5 feet 5 inches tall, admitted he concealed cigarettes, tried to escape when confronted and then defended himself from the employees, guarding his face with his arms and fists as they tried to detain him.

First, Lawson said, the security guard placed him in a headlock and pushed him to the floor inside the store at the north entrance.

“The rest of them ran up to me, started grabbing me and kicked me on my side,” Lawson said. “One of them had his knee on my chest to keep me down.”

He said employees trying to subdue him during the incident called him “boy,” a term blacks consider derogatory. He said the employees said, “C’mon boy,” as they attempted to handcuff him.

“I felt like they were trying to fight me,” he said. Lawson said the scuffle left him injured. Two days after the incident, Lawson checked into the emergency room at Memorial Hospital, where doctors said he had suffered chest contusions, or bruises, according to a medical report.

Lawson said he waited two days to get treatment because he was still in shock. As the pain in his chest got worse and he began to have recurring headaches, he went to the emergency room, he said.

In another doctor’s examination last week, Lawson underwent a brain scan. Doctors said he had suffered a concussion, according to medical forms obtained by The Gazette.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. representatives in Arkansas said the company investigated after The Gazette’s inquiries and found no evidence to support accusations of brutality or racism.

“That’s just ridiculous,” said John Bisio, spokesman. “That store in particular is well-represented by people of all color. To imply or state racial motive is just without merit. It’s a classic case of embarrassment and sour grapes.’’

Bisio said he spoke to managers and the employees involved about the incident. From his inquiries, Bisio determined only two employees, a security guard and an assistant manager, apprehended Lawson outside the store’s front doors. He would not release their names.

The summons and complaint were signed by Thomas Taylor Jr., an employee who said he couldn’t talk with the media because it was against company policy, and Ann Zimmerman, another employee who store employees say is the night shift manager.

Bisio also said Lawson was not dragged across the store. He said the incident occurred outside the store and Lawson was escorted to the south entrance from there.

Bisio said Lawson tried to escape, collided with one employee and caused them both to fall to the ground. “There was a lot of thrashing about by the customer,” he said. “When he scrambled to get up, they handcuffed him.”

On occasion, force is used to subdue a suspected shoplifter, said Wal-Mart representatives, especially if a suspect fights back. But the company denies employees kicked Lawson.

“If someone is trying to get away, kicking won’t stop them,” said Jessica Moser, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman. “This had nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with Wal-Mart’s zero tolerance for shoplifting.”

Later in the day of Lawson’s arrest, his sister Anita Davis confronted store managers about the incident and demanded to see any videotapes of it. Police were called, and she was charged with harassment. She is scheduled to appear in court Jan. 18.

Lawson’s first court appearance is scheduled for Jan. 25. He was cited for shoplifting and possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana at the time of his arrest.

[url]http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/07/walmarts_shocki.html[/url][/b]

———————————–

Wal-Mart’s Shoplifting Policy

Wal-Mart officials say company policy states that security guards must see a suspect hide an item and walk past the registers to the front door before a minimum of two guards can confront the suspect.

Next, the guard must ask the suspect to return the stolen item.

If a suspect tries to flee, handcuffs can be used for restraint.

Jessica Moser, a corporate spokeswoman, said that although shoplifting policies vary from store to store, under no circumstances do any of the policies allow guards to kick a suspect.

“We don’t want to make a scene,” Moser said. “We accompany them to a private office in the store and then fill out paperwork. Our utmost priority is the safety of the employees and the customers. If they have a weapon, we just call police. If we can stop them, then we do.”

Local police said the Wal-Mart on Platte Avenue and Chelton Road received 86 calls for service Nov. 28 through Wednesday [Dec. 29]. Of those, 22 calls were about shoplifting. The other calls were about suspicious persons, medical emergencies, traffic accidents and domestic disturbances.

============================

Wal-Mart sued over shoplifting suspect who died in scuffle
By ROBERT CROWE – Houston Chronicle
November 16, 2005
The family of a man suspected of shoplifting who died after struggling with Wal-Mart employees filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the retail giant.

Stacy Clay Driver’s father and widow are seeking unspecified damages for his Aug. 7 death at the Atascocita Wal-Mart, 6626 FM 1960 East. The Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office recently ruled his death a homicide.

“This family was grievously harmed,” said Jim Lindeman, the lawyer for Driver’s family.

Wal-Mart spokesman Marty Heires declined to discuss the details of the suit.

“Because this likely will be presented to a grand jury, I think any further comment now is inappropriate,” Heires said.

Loss-prevention employees told police that Driver tried to take $94 worth of merchandise by putting receipt stickers on items he had not purchased, claiming they were returns and asking for store credit.

When confronted, Driver ran into the parking lot, pursued by a loss-prevention employee. According to the suit, the employee wrestled Driver to the ground. Other Wal-Mart employees assisted in subduing Driver as he struggled to get up.

On Nov. 4, the medical examiner ruled Driver’s death was caused primarily by asphyxia because of neck and chest compression while a secondary cause was hyperthermia with methamphetamine toxicity.

Driver, 30, had lived with his wife, Wendy, 27, and son, Ashton, 5 months, in Cleveland, about 45 miles north of Houston.

===========================

Will New Wal-Mart Policy Help Catch More Drunken Drivers?

If you are a retailer, setting a policy for handling shoplifters isn’t simple. Do you call the police for every shoplifter, even a kid who pockets a box of crayons? What about a senior citizen taking some batteries? Do you treat first-timers the same as pros?

Wal-Mart has long been known for a very strict policy: call the police on anyone who takes anything. But that policy is over. Wal-Mart, which I am guessing may be the largest shoplifting target in history, is no longer prosecuting first-time shoplifter unless they are between 18 and 65 and have stolen more than $25 worth of stuff. According to today’s N.Y. Times, this change puts Wal-Mart in line with most other chains’ policies.

Why the change? Plainly, Wal-Mart had a strong preference for a zero-tolerance policy. But as it turned out, it was the economics — of their business and of policing — that produced the change.

For the store, the opportunity cost had come to severely outweigh the shoplifting cost. “J.P. Suarez, who is in charge of asset protection at Wal-Mart, said it was no longer efficient to prosecute petty shoplifters,” Michael Barbaro wrote in the Times. “‘If I have somebody being paid $12 an hour processing a $5 theft, I have just lost money,’ he said. ‘I have also lost the time to catch somebody stealing $100 or an organized group stealing $3,000.’”

But, although the article doesn’t quite say so, I am guessing it was the pressure from police departments that truly forced Wal-Mart’s hand. The Times quotes Don Zofchak, police chief in South Strabane Township, Pa., as saying that Wal-Mart “would arrest somebody for stealing a pair of socks. I felt we were spending an inordinate amount of time just dealing with Wal-Mart.”

It wouldn’t surprise me if police in many small cities and rural areas had stopped responding to Wal-Mart’s daily requests to pick up their shoplifters, or at least grumbled mightily about having to do so. Wal-Mart has taken lots of heat for lots of reasons over the years — including, for instance, the fact that many of its low-wage employees also receive public assistance, which has led some critics to say that the U.S. Government in effect subsidizes Wal-Mart’s business. I can imagine how its old shoplifting policy may have led to even more damaging criticism — that Wal-Mart has turned local police forces into Wal-Mart police forces, preventing them from doing their real jobs.

Wal-Mart is famously protective of its data, and I am sure it will not divulge much about how this new policy plays out. (The Times article, e.g., was based on internal documents leaked to the paper by WakeUpWal-Mart.com, “a group backed by unions that have tried to organize Wal-Mart workers in the U.S.”) But if for someone could figure out exactly how and when each Wal-Mart store changes its shoplifting policy, and how many fewer times it calls the police, it would be really interesting to see what else the police in those places end up doing: do they make more arrests for drunken driving or domestic abuse or meth distribution?

http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2006/07/13/okay-to-steal-cheap-stuff-from-wal-mart

 My Photo
Name: EMILY RODRIGUES, 56716 9013
Location: 6341 Deborah Street, Long Beach, CA 90815, US

divorced, no children, like cats but NOT dogs!

  • targetunion.org
  • retailworker.com


 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: