Covered by NYDaily News. Las Vegas man accused of threatening a prominent attorney and making vile remarks.
Covered by New York Times, and other outlets. Fake heiress accused of conning the city’s wealthy, and has an HBO special being made about her.
Accused of stalking Alec Baldwin. The case garnered nationwide attention, with USAToday, NYPost, and other media outlets following it closely.
Juror who prompted calls for new Ghislaine Maxwell trial turns to lawyer who defended Anna Sorokin.
Clients can use our portal to track the status of their case, stay in touch with us, upload documents, and more.
Regardless of the type of situation you're facing, our attorneys are here to help you get quality representation.
We can setup consultations in person, over Zoom, or over the phone to help you. Bottom line, we're here to help you win your case.
The Spodek Law Group understands how delicate high-profile cases can be, and has a strong track record of getting positive outcomes. Our lawyers service a clientele that is nationwide. With offices in both LA and NYC, and cases all across the country - Spodek Law Group is a top tier law firm.
Todd Spodek is a second generation attorney with immense experience. He has many years of experience handling 100’s of tough and hard to win trials. He’s been featured on major news outlets, such as New York Post, Newsweek, Fox 5 New York, South China Morning Post, Insider.com, and many others.
In 2022, Netflix released a series about one of Todd’s clients: Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin.
Why Clients Choose Spodek Law Group
The reason is simple: clients want white glove service, and lawyers who can win. Every single client who works with the Spodek Law Group is aware that the attorney they hire could drastically change the outcome of their case. Hiring the Spodek Law Group means you’re taking your future seriously. Our lawyers handle cases nationwide, ranging from NYC to LA. Our philosophy is fair and simple: our nyc criminal lawyers only take on clients who we know will benefit from our services.
We’re selective about the clients we work with, and only take on cases we know align with our experience – and where we can make a difference. This is different from other law firms who are not invested in your success nor care about your outcome.
If you have a legal issue, call us for a consultation.
We are available 24/7, to help you with any – and all, challenges you face.
Civil investigative demands (CIDs) can be burdensome for companies, requiring significant time and resources to respond. However, companies under CID investigation have options to push back against unreasonable demands. External communications with regulators and petitioning to limit or quash CIDs are two strategies companies can use.
Civil investigative demands allow government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission to compel companies to provide information and documents related to investigations into potential legal violations
CIDs function similarly to subpoenas. They require companies to respond to interrogatories, provide written reports, produce documents, and submit tangible items relevant to investigations. Failure to comply can result in enforcement action.
While companies are expected to bear some burden responding to CIDs, agencies should not impose undue burdens
. Companies can push back when CID specifications are unreasonably broad or burdensome.
If specifications seem indefinite or overly burdensome, companies can petition to limit or quash the CID
. This involves submitting a written legal argument identifying issues with the CID and requesting modifications.
Companies would argue specifications are too burdensome if responding would disrupt normal business operations or require unreasonable effort or expense. Arguments to quash focus on specifications being indefinite or requesting irrelevant information.
Another option is trying to negotiate the scope of specifications directly with regulators
. This involves explaining issues with current specifications and proposing reasonable modifications.
Regulators want to avoid litigation over CID disputes, so may be open to good faith negotiations. However, they ultimately have discretion in determining the appropriate scope.
In addition to formal petitions and negotiations, external communications can shape how agencies approach CID specifications and enforcement.
Senior business leaders can communicate directly with senior regulatory officials to voice concerns over a CID’s scope or relevance
. These external communications should be transparent, with investigative staff included.
High-level communications bring visibility to issues and can motivate agencies to reconsider burdensome demands. However, overreach risks being seen as political interference.
Work with legal counsel and communications professionals to brief media outlets and industry advocates on unreasonable CID specifications
Control the narrative by proactively communicating how specifications exceed investigatory needs or regulatory authority. This can pressure agencies to scale back demands.
When agencies request public comments on proposed regulations, submit letters highlighting issues with existing CID practices
Comments can influence future regulatory changes. Collective action through industry groups also carries more weight.
The initial priority is demonstrating cooperation and transparency. Provide high-level information about organizational structure, data systems, and personnel
Respond thoroughly to specifications not subject to dispute. For example, provide policies, procedures, org charts, and transaction-level sales data.
If specifications seem unreasonable, seek clarification from agency staff about what information they are truly seeking to obtain. Offer to provide samples while negotiating limitations.
Getting basic information to regulators early builds goodwill. Refusing any compliance without justification appears obstructionist.
Mishandling responses can worsen regulatory scrutiny. Ensure legal counsel guides decision-making to avoid common mistakes.
Notification provisions prohibit destroying documents after receiving a CID, even in normal course of business
. Avoid any appearance of concealing relevant information.
While keyword searches help filter data for review and production, agencies can compel companies to provide statistically significant samples of excluded non-privileged documents
Blanket exclusions raise compliance questions. Catalogue and selectively sample excluded materials to demonstrate reasonableness.
Document every step taken to gather responsive materials, including search tools, terms, and processes
Transparently log and explain review methodologies. It demonstrates good faith efforts to regulators.
Petition to limit or quash unreasonably burdensome CID specifications
Negotiate scopes of information requests with regulatory staff
Communicate externally to bring attention to problematic CIDs
Provide cooperative initial responses focused on high-level information
Avoid destroying documents or over-filtering data productions
FTC Petition to Limit Abbott Labs CID
Managing Civil Investigative Demands
Leveraging Public Comments in Rulemaking
Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.