|
Have a friend or co-worker you think may be interested in our newsletter?
| |
|
J&M Associates Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, 2008 WL 5102246 (S.D.Cal.,2008 Dec. 2, 2008) – Access granted to opposing party’s e-mail servers in order to recover deleted e-mails. Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, 2008 WL 5104173 (D.Minn. Nov. 26, 2008) – In a multi-district litigation regarding the manufacture of allegedly defective plumbing fittings the defendant was ordered to name a witness to be deposed on whether it preserved evidence dating back to its notice of likely litigation in 2004 and to identify the author of an e-mail who likened selling the fixtures to “playing Russian roulette.” Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 23, 2008) - Defendant sanctioned for failing to provide a 30(b)(6) witness where deponent failed to answer the most basic questions about its e-mail systems, other computer systems, and backup policies and procedures. Trackbacks D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2008 WL 4737202 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2008) - Defendants' proposed search protocol was found to be "fundamentally misguided", “highly technical”, and “highly restrictive”. Court created its own protocol and ordered search of “any depository” that may contain the information sought.
| |
|
Do you have a question or challenge you'd like the experts at IE Discovery
to address? Please email us, and we'd be happy to help you plan
your strategy.
| |
|
|
|
By Chris Knox, Chief Information Officer, IE Discovery, Inc. Download the Archived Webcast The landscape of legal discovery is changing. With the shift from paper-based to electronic information, lawyers no longer spend countless hours reviewing boxes of paper documents. Instead, most now spend their time collecting, managing, and reviewing electronic data. Unlike paper-based discovery—which was a relatively static process—e-discovery is in a perpetual state of change as technology continuously evolves. The most recent changes result from amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that compel attorneys to deal with electronic data early in the litigation process through the Meet & Confer conference with opposing counsel. The FRCP changes also allow us to take advantage of the Safe Harbor provision if data is lost or destroyed, but only if we can show there is a good faith and routine operation of our computer systems. We cannot begin to represent to the court that our client has a good faith and routine operation of its computer system unless we understand how data is stored and flows through our clients systems and how those systems are operated. More changes are inevitable as the body of case law grows ever larger with each lawsuit containing electronically stored information (ESI) that is brought to trial. There are many issues involved in managing electronic data during litigation, but one aspect of which many attorneys are often unaware involves the location and nature of client data and data management procedures. Many attorneys see this information as too technical to address—they figure that all responsibility for data management lies with the IT department. This hands-off approach is a serious mistake.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Stacy O'Neil Jackson, Corporate Counsel, IE Discovery, Inc. “It took man thousands of years to put words down on paper, and his lawyers still wish he wouldn't.” – Mignon McLaughlin These days, the wish for clients to stop putting words on paper has been fulfilled…in a way. It’s true that most clients no longer generate huge volumes of paper, but—as we all know—it’s not because they’ve stopped capturing information. Instead, they’ve simply shifted the information to a new format: electronic data. Despite the tedium inherent to sifting through box after box of paper, many attorneys yearn for those familiar days. That’s understandable—the task of understanding electronic data management is overwhelming for most non-technical personnel. Fortunately, formulating an efficient and effective process for collecting, reviewing, and processing electronic data isn’t a shot in the dark. In fact, the technical questions at the forefront of most litigator’s minds have straightforward answers that are proven by years of experience. The purpose of this article is to share those answers, so that you, too, understand the basic formula for a successful e-Discovery effort.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Stacy O'Neil Jackson, Corporate Counsel, IE Discovery, Inc. E-discovery is a daunting process. But by breaking it down into steps, legal departments can better plan for the often-grueling task, which will save time, money and aggravation.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Stacy O'Neil Jackson, Corporate Counsel, IE Discovery, Inc. Like a modern-day Goldilocks, attorneys are struggling to find an e-discovery approach that is not too broad, not too specific, but just right. Fortunately, two recent cases--Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Service Company, No. 1:2008cv00273 (D.Md. Oct. 15, 2008) and Containment Technologies Group v. American Society of Health Systems Pharmacists, No. 1:2007cv00997 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2008)—have tackled the problem at both ends of the spectrum. The Mancia case focused on overbroad, vague discovery requests and responses; Containment Technologies, on the other hand, examined requests that were too specific. In Mancia, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm found that a litigant requesting discovery must make tailored requests, while the producing party must offer specific reasons why a request is overbroad, inaccessible or otherwise burdensome. In Containment Technologies, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker ruled that a producing party can broadly include e-discovery within a protective order without needing to review every part of every file first. Both rulings specifically attempt to bring the parties more in line with the intent of the revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
Read the Decision: Rhoads Ind., Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, et al., 2008 WL 4916026 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 14, 2008). Federal Rule of Evidence 502 - Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine was signed into law on September 19, 2008. This new rule created a national standard for inadvertent disclosures and adopted the middle of the road approach, i.e. the balancing test. The new rule looks at the reasonable steps taken to prevent the disclosure. Litigants have been waiting to see what the actual impact of the new rule will be. The Rhoads case is one of the first cases to apply the new rule. Let’s see what is says.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
Listen to the interview by Ari Kaplan of Chris May, CEO, IE Discovery, Inc., as he talks about the purported increase in the sub-prime, financial, wage & hour and class action litigation and its impact on the electronic discovery community. Are you prepared for the increase in litigation for 2009? Listen to the Interview
Read the entire article
|
|
|
