Discovery Resources

Wed. 3/24 - Mary Mack welcomes Charles W. Cohen (Partner, Co-Chair, eDiscovery Practice Group, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP) for Fios’ quarterly e-discovery case law update. They will explore recent court decisions, including Judge Scheindlin’s most recent ruling; the impact these cases may have and are already having; and tactics and strategies organizations should consider to help control their e-discovery costs and risks. More info / register >

12/9 - Be sure to register for this webcast featuring an outstanding panel of e-discovery experts discussing what’s wrong (and right) with the current e-discovery rules and system.  Moderated by Mary Mack, the panel members include:

• Richard Braman, Executive Director of the Sedona Conference
• Craig Merritt, Christian & Barton LLP & former member of The American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery
• Bruce Parker, Partner, Venable LLP - Lawyers for Civil Justice

More information / register >

Records managers will be taking a new look at “Create dates” after the Arizona Supreme Court mandated production of metadata in public records.

The case involved a demoted police officer who wanted access to the metadata to prove notes were backdated.  Up until now, most cases have held that there must be a showing that metadata is necessary before ordering its production.  While this case may be applied narrowly for Arizona public records, it may impact other governmental entities and courts.

“It would be illogical, and contrary to the policy of openness underlying the public records law, to conclude that public entities can withhold information embedded in an electronic document, such as continue…

Wed. 12/16 - As of Sept. 2009, twenty five states have adopted e-discovery procedural rules that reflect the 2006 FRCP amendments. Many others are considering changes. In this 3rd annual webcast, Tom Allman and Mary Mack provide an update.  More info / Register >

The money quote: “BNSF, through its spokesperson, Suann Lundsberg, told Minnesota Lawyer that there was an issue six years ago regarding evidence preservation and acknowledged that BNSF could have done a more thorough job of documenting that the gates and lights were properly activated.”

This fascinating story, from Minnesota Lawyer, of sanctions and fully complying with discovery is a good read. Continue reading….

By Fernando M. Pinguelo and Andrew K. Taylor

Earlier we reported that a New Jersey state trial court found that a former employee waived the attorney-client privilege when she decided to use company time, equipment, and resources to communicate with her lawyer. Recently, an appellate court reversed that ruling and framed the issue as “whether workplace regulations converted an employee’s emails with her attorney ” sent through the employee’s personal, password-protected, web-based email account, but via her employer’s computer “into the employer’s property.”

Plaintiff had argued that the company failed to demonstrate that it had ever adopted or distributed the policy in question, that she was unaware that the policy applied to continue…

This just in, from InformationWeek Global CIO: “An appeals court rejected Ron Perelman’s request for a new trial in a case that saw the cosmetics tycoon win a $1.5 billion judgment against Morgan Stanley, only to see the award overturned on appeal. Much of the original case centered on Morgan Stanley’s failure to produce e-mails that Perelman wanted entered as evidence.” Continue reading….

Legal Holds & Trigger Events, is a blog dedicated to cases, insights, developments and best practices relating to the development and implementation of legal holds relating to audit, investigation and litigation in the United States; and trigger events that give rise to the duty to preserve evidence in the United States.

Today they review a report of In Shukla v. Sharma (EDNY Aug. 21, 2009),in which a Hindu Priest, claimed that the Ashram he lived and worked for in New York illegally trafficked him into the US in 2000 and enslaved him.

The primary discussion of the Report is a summary judgment motion by defendants, but a spoliation motion also considered by continue…

California Lawyer this month has a interesting article by Perry L. Segal, an IT executive turned e-discovery attorney and consultant. “Remember the old adage “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? In the e-discovery universe, you’ll need several pounds. The California Electronic Discovery Act has been in place for about three months, and I’ve been fielding a lot of inquiries. The number one question is: “How much is all this going to cost?”

Answer: How much do you have?”

Continue reading…

Contrary to popular belief, the new California rules for ediscovery do not mandate a protective order when dealing with not reasonably accessible data.  The rules are similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that the not reasonably accessible data needs to be identified, and then the burden shifts to the other side to press further.  The earlier draft, vetoed by the governor last year, did not have this provision.  This change will save California businesses millions in motion fees and courts substantial time in hearing them.

Some practitioners with experience crafted the provision.  Categories and sources can be identified, removing the potential requirement of indexing tapes to determine with continue…