<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Judge Tommy E. Miller</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-tommy-e-miller/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:26:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Court Won’t Seal FLSA Settlement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/08/court-wont-seal-flsa-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/08/court-wont-seal-flsa-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 15:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Rebecca Beach Smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk U.S. District Court accepts a magistrate judge’s recommendations to approve a class action settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case filed against a Norfolk call center, and to deny the call center’s motion to seal the settlement. The complaint alleged that customer service representatives in Ryla Teleservices’ call center were not paid [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/08/court-wont-seal-flsa-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Corporate client privilege covers ex-director’s emails&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/corporate-client-privilege-covers-ex-directors-emails/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/corporate-client-privilege-covers-ex-directors-emails/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A company suing to protect its patents can “claw back” emails its lawyer shared with a former board member, a Norfolk U.S. District Court said earlier this month. In a twist on the traditional test for attorney-client privilege in the corporate context, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller said the privilege covered communications from the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/corporate-client-privilege-covers-ex-directors-emails/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Company May Claw Back Emails in Patent Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/company-may-claw-back-emails-in-patent-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/company-may-claw-back-emails-in-patent-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sarah Rodriguez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this discovery dispute in patent litigation  involving software used to facilitate distance learning, a Norfolk U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge says plaintiff company did not waive attorney-client privilege when it shared certain email communications with a former board member who was the “functional equivalent” of a current board member, and plaintiff may claw back [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/company-may-claw-back-emails-in-patent-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Undue Prejudice Not Shown&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/undue-prejudice-not-shown/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/undue-prejudice-not-shown/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73088</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In business invitee’s negligence action against grocery store for injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on a wet floor, the Newport News U.S. District Court magistrate judge allows plaintiff to amend her complaint to increase the damages claimed from $225,000 to $750,000; plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint filed more than six months before the scheduled [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/undue-prejudice-not-shown/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Jones Act Claim for Intoxicated Seaman&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-jones-act-claim-for-intoxicated-seaman/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-jones-act-claim-for-intoxicated-seaman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:15:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff was on land when he injured his hand while shucking oysters for defendant seafood company, he spent most of his time on the water dredging oysters or crabbing for defendant, and the Newport News U.S. District Court says plaintiff was a “seaman” for purposes of suing under the Jones Act; however, the court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/12/no-jones-act-claim-for-intoxicated-seaman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Harassment Claim for Post-Sale ‘Slap’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/03/no-harassment-claim-for-post-sale-slap/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/03/no-harassment-claim-for-post-sale-slap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:48:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69940</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An employer wins summary judgment in a suit alleging retaliation for plaintiff’s complaint about sexual harassment when her male manager slapped her on the backside after she closed a particularly difficult sale of a resort timeshare; her internal complaint was not protected activity under Title VII and legitimate attendance issues led to her termination, says [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/03/no-harassment-claim-for-post-sale-slap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oyster-Shucking Injury May Be Jones Act Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/oyster-shucking-injury-may-be-jones-act-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/oyster-shucking-injury-may-be-jones-act-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:59:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admiralty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who was shucking oysters for defendant seafood company may have a Jones Act claim for injury to his left pinky finger from moving a conveyor belt while he was shucking oysters, leading amputation at the first joint; the Newport News U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge denies the seafood company’s motion for summary judgment [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/oyster-shucking-injury-may-be-jones-act-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hotline Complaint not ‘Protected Activity’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/hotline-complaint-not-protected-activity/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/hotline-complaint-not-protected-activity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:30:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68307</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An African-American woman’s anonymous call to her employer’s hot line to report a coworker’s alleged use of company Internet access for personal activities was not “protected activity” under Title VII and the Newport News U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge dismisses plaintiff’s claim that she suffered race discrimination when she was targeted during a reduction in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/hotline-complaint-not-protected-activity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Couple wins defamation case against TV station&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/couple-wins-defamation-case-against-tv-station/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/couple-wins-defamation-case-against-tv-station/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:17:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sarah Rodriguez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million-Dollar Verdicts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/couple-wins-defamation-case-against-tv-station/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“On your side” consumer reports have become a staple of local television news coverage. The consumer reporter investigates complaints about a business and reports findings, often including how the station helped an angry citizen. But a 2010 report on a Hampton Roads TV station went too far, according to a federal jury in Norfolk. Earlier [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/couple-wins-defamation-case-against-tv-station/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebuttal Witnesses Not Too Late&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/rebuttal-witnesses-not-too-late/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/rebuttal-witnesses-not-too-late/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:14:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Tommy E. Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/rebuttal-witnesses-not-too-late/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In plaintiffs’ defamation suit against a television station, a Norfolk U.S. District Court magistrate judge says plaintiffs may not belatedly designated certain persons as case-in-chief witnesses, but they may name two additional persons as rebuttal witnesses. Plaintiffs allege defendants’ March 31, 2011 broadcast contained “false implications … that the plaintiffs had unlawfully converted or embezzled [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/rebuttal-witnesses-not-too-late/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
