Mikella (Mikey) M. Hurley
- Washington, D.C.
Mikey has experience with a variety of legal issues related to privacy and data security, electronic surveillance, national security, and laws applicable to digital discrimination.
Mikella (Mikey) Hurley routinely represents communications providers in litigation matters involving electronic surveillance issues, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the First and Fourth Amendments. She counsels clients in various areas, including financial privacy, mobile advertising and location-tracking technologies, and matters relating to international data transfers. She also assists clients in addressing challenges at the intersection of machine learning, algorithmic fairness, consumer protection, and civil rights.
Mikey is well versed in various statutes and laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), federal and state nondiscrimination laws, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and state consumer privacy laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
Prior to returning to Perkins Coie, Mikey served as general counsel at the technology startup, SignalFrame. She also previously worked in several positions at Gavi, an international development organization based in Geneva, Switzerland.
Areas of focus
Education & Credentials
Education
- Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, 2015
- Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, M.S., International Law, 2012
- Macalester College, B.A., Religious Studies, 2003
Bar and Court Admissions
-
District of Columbia
-
New York
Related Employment
- SignalFrame, Washington, D.C., General Counsel, 2018-2019
- Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, D.C., Associate, 2016-2018
- Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington D.C., Summer Associate, 2014
- Judicial Intern for the Hon. James E. Boasberg, U.S. District Court for The District of Columbia, Washington D.C., 2013-2014
Clerkships
- Hon. Roy W. McLeese III, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Additional Languages
- French
Insights
Professional Experience
Facebook, Inc. v. State, Nos. A-3350-20, A-0119-21
New Jersey Superior Courts for Mercer and Atlantic Counties, New Jersey Appellate Division of the Superior Court, New Jersey Supreme Court
Represented Facebook in matters addressing whether warrants seeking 30 days of prospective communications contents are violative of Wiretap Act and Fourth Amendment.
In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-01 to Google, Nos. 16-960-M-01, 16-1061
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Represented Google in matter regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States.
Matter of Search of Content That is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, No. 16-mc-80263
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Google in matter regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States.
In re: Two email accounts stored at Google, Inc., No. 17-M-1235
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Represented Google in matter regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States.
In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated With [Redacted]@gmail.com That Is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, Inc., No. 17-mj-757 (GMH)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Represented Google in matter regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States.
State of New Mexico v. Murphy, No: D-202-CR-2016-02253
Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County, NM
Successfully briefed and argued motion on behalf of Google in proceeding to determine whether a criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to compel testimony from employees of a third-party company.