Discovery Resources

This event, presented by Rutgers School of Law, brings together some of the most respected and knowledgeable in-house experts, judges, lawyers, and litigation support professionals for a multi-disciplinary symposium designed specifically for businesses to help them contain costs, reduce risk, achieve results, and deliver enduring value to their organizations.

Speakers include Steven C. Bennett, Esq., Partner at Jones-Day, Rutgers e-discovery Law Professor, Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq., Partner and Co-Chair of Response to Electronic Discovery and Information Group (REDI), Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A, Terri L. Reicher, Esq., Associate Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Washington, DC, The Honorable Michael A. Shipp, U.S.M.J., United States District continue…

Judge hammers company for using hard drive-cleaning software during litigation.
By Will Hilton

Kucala Enterprises, Ltd. v. Auto Wax Co., Inc., 2003 WL 21230605 (N.D.Ill.)

Employer Implicated: Company Owner/Executive

eLesson Learned: Do not use hard drive-scrubbing software to destroy computer documents in the middle of a lawsuit, and listen to your lawyer when he tells you not to do so.

This case involves evidence spoliation where one party made an amazing gaffe during the information discovery part of litigation, often called “discovery.”  Kucala Enterprises and its owner, John Kucala (collectively “Kucala”), filed a lawsuit against Auto Wax Company (“Auto Wax”) in 2001 to invalidate a patent owned by Auto Wax.  Auto Wax countersued for patent infringement.  After continue…

Good planning makes for less litigation

By Tim Cedrone

Hagenbuch v. 3B6 Technologies, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10838 (N.D. Ill. 2006)

Employee/Employer Implicated: Management

eLesson Learned: Reach an agreement with the other party on how documents will be produced.

What happens when a company accused of patent infringement agrees to certain electronic discovery procedures and then fails to follow those procedures? The answer is very simple: the court turns into the Incredible Hulk! Court get angry! Court smash! Court bash!

In Hagenbuch v. 3B6 Technologies, LLC, the plaintiff accused the defendant of patent infringement related to devices for onboard weighing systems for vehicles.  During the course of pretrial discovery, the plaintiff requested certain documents from the continue…

By Tanya Basu

State v. Voorheis, 844 A.2d 794 (Vt. 2004)

Employee Implicated:  A (Perverted) Defendant

eLesson Learned: Instant messaging, or IM, may provide realtime convenience and conferencing capabilities, but it creates a written business record that may be subpoenaed and used as evidence in litigation or regulatory investigations.

E-mail use is on the decline as businesses rely more on instant messaging (IM) for its realtime convenience and conferencing capabilities.  State v. Voorheis shows us that the impact of IM on litigation will become more significant with its increased use.

The Facts

A Vermont jury convicted Defendant of incitement and attempt to use a child in a sexual performance. Defendant appealed the conviction claiming that the continue…

A bankruptcy judge in the Northern District of Ohio has forbidden a creditor from using information on its own electronic database to prove an administrative claim against a debtor’s estate because it refused to provide the debtor with access to the database throughout the discovery process

By Patrick Ryan

In re LTV Steel Co., 307 B.R. 37 (N.D. Ohio 2004)

Employer/Employee Implicated: Counsel

eLesson Learned: When producing only a summary of materials on an electronic database, be prepared to make the database itself available for inspection. Failure to allow inspection might lead to preclusion of evidence at trial, or even dismissal of your case.

In what can only be described as a pyrrhic victory, continue…