Menu
  • Steven Blickensderfer
  • 305.539.7340
  • Share this page
Steven Blickensderfer

Steven Blickensderfer

Associate

Overview

Steven Blickensderfer advises clients on data privacy and cybersecurity matters. As a certified information privacy professional (CIPP/US), accredited by the International Association of Privacy Professionals, he has the experience and qualifications to counsel clients in a number of areas relating to data privacy and cybersecurity, including:

  • data incident/breach preparation and response;
  • internal and external privacy policy review, drafting, and implementation;
  • product counseling and regulatory advice concerning federal and state privacy laws (such as the FTC Act, GLBA, FCRA, HIPAA, COPPA, CAN-SPAM, CaCPA, BIPA, etc.), as well as industry standards (such as the PCI-DSS); and
  • foreign data privacy law guidance and compliance, particularly regarding the GDPR.

Steven is an active member of the firm’s cybersecurity and data privacy practice, which Above The Law listed among the top privacy practices in the nation in 2018. He is also an active member of the data privacy and cybersecurity committees of the Florida Bar and American Bar Association.

In addition to his data privacy practice, Steve handles a wide variety of civil litigation matters in federal and state court for clients across a number of industries. He is experienced in all phases of litigation, including case analysis and strategy, written and electronic discovery, depositions, expert witness preparation, motion practice, alternative dispute resolution, trials, and appeals. He has participated in a number of trials, including a two-week federal jury trial involving First Amendment issues that attracted national media attention, and has argued in several appellate courts, including the Florida Supreme Court. Prior to joining the firm, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jay P. Cohen of Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal.

Featured Insights

Experience

Select Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Matters

  • Advises established companies and technology start-ups on domestic and foreign data privacy laws implicated by product and marketing strategies, including expanded business to Europe.
  • Counsels companies that have experienced data breaches or cybersecurity incidents, including phishing schemes, ransomware, and e-mail compromises.
  • Advised mortgage lending company on response and mitigation efforts following unauthorized access to an employee email account that resulted in theft of escrow funds.
  • Counseled commercial loan servicing company through breach incidents involving phishing attacks that resulted in the theft of sensitive financial records.
  • Represented an insurance company on intermediate appeal by defending trial order that compelled the discovery of corporate financial records over privacy objections.
  • Developed a questionnaire that helps companies better determine whether the GDPR applies to their business.
  • Developed checklist used for reviewing and analyzing external privacy policies to ensure compliance with the latest developments in online privacy policy laws.

Select Litigation Matters

  • Albert v. School Board of Manatee County, Fla., 17-CA-004113 (Fla. 12th Cir. Ct.). Representing defendant in a W-2 data disclosure class action.
  • James Tracy v. Florida Atlantic University, et al., 18-10173 (appeal pending, 11th Cir.) and 16-cv-8065 (S.D. Fla.). Representing tenured professor fired in retaliation for blogging activity and raising facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to school’s vague and viewpoint-discriminatory policy.
  • Nieburg v. Sulzberger, et al., No. 3D16-1905 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 31, 2018).  Affirmed dismissal of legal malpractice complaint brought by alleged third-party beneficiaries.
  • Holmes Regional v. Allstate, 225 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2017). Represented medical care providers in medical malpractice litigation with respect to the application of the equitable subrogation doctrine, where an unsatisfied judgment had been entered against the initial tortfeasor. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District and required dismissal of the subrogation claim against the medical care providers.
  • Brevard Estates v. Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, 14-26285-CA-20 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2016). Defense verdict obtained in $12 million action against title insurer for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Appeal pending.
  • Block 40, LLC v. CND Grp., LLC, 14-003876 CACE (05) (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2016).  Judgment obtained in a multi-million dollar commercial transaction concerning the issue of tender and attorney’s fees.  Affirmed on appeal.  16-4001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
  • MetroPCS Comm’ns, Inc. v. Porter, 225 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). On remand, enforcing the court’s mandate to limit the scope of discovery in advance of hearing the telecommunication provider’s motion to compel arbitration.
  • Linde v. Linde, 199 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).  Challenge to a decision in an emergency guardianship proceeding finding the ward not to be incapacitated.
  • SP Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. Surgery Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 208 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Affirmed multi-million dollar judgment stemming from the purchase and sale of health care centers, and on cross-appeal reversed the final judgment to include prejudgment interest and to allow appellees to offset their prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs against the earnout payment due under the parties’ contract.
  • McCabe v. Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corp., 191 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Per curiam affirmance of summary judgment entered in favor of annuity provider on issues related to vicarious liability and statute of limitations.
  • Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 150 So. 3d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Per curiam affirmance of defense verdict in an asbestos case involving an evidentiary issue.

Featured Insights

All Insights
























Recognition

  • Selected for inclusion in Florida Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2018)

Professional & Community Involvement

  • International Association of Privacy Professionals (2016–present)
  • American Bar Association
    • Privacy & Data Security (2016–present)
    • Appellate Section (2013–present)
  • Florida Bar
    • Business Law Section (2017-present)
    • Vice Chair, Technology and Computer Law Committee (2018-2019)
    • Member, Digital Currency Taskforce
    • Young Lawyers Division (2011–present)
    • Appellate Practice and Advocacy (2014–present)
  • Dade County Bar Association
    • Appellate Court Committee (2013–present)
  • Mortgage Bankers Association (2016–present)
  • InfraGard, South Florida Chapter (2016–present) 

Speaking Engagements

  • Co-presenter, “Community Association Website Requirements: Navigating A Web of Confusion and Privacy Issues,” Florida Bar RPPTL section webinar series (June 27, 2018)

Pro Bono

State v. Perez, 149 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 2014). Handled all aspects of representation of indigent client before the Florida Supreme Court on a certified question pertaining to a postconviction legal standard. The court discharged jurisdiction, allowing the client's evidentiary hearing to go forward as desired. Read the brief. Watch the oral argument.

Credentials

Education
  • University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2011)
  • University of South Florida (B.A., magna cum laude, 2006)
Bar Admissions
  • Florida
Clerkships
  • Judge Jay P. Cohen, Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal

Background

  • Senior Law Clerk, The Honorable Jay P. Cohen, Fifth District Court of Appeal (2011-2013)
  • Certified Legal Intern, Virgil Hawkins Civil and Family Law Clinic, Full-Representation Division (2011)
  • Summer Clerk, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps (2010)
  • Intern, The Honorable James S. Moody, Jr., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.