Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
You know someone is taking a hit when a judge works in references to Pink Floyd’s “Sorrow” and Simon and Garfunkel’s “Sounds of Silence.” Sound the Division Bell, because there is a Bridge Over Troubled Water. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman did exactly that in Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35225[…]
Read moreBrowning Marean is one of the best minds on eDiscovery. He is a friend and recently has been fighting cancer. I wish him a speedy recovery and am very glad he has a favorable prognosis. One of Browning’s defining traits is caring about others. I have always enjoyed my video[…]
Read moreIt is not a good day when you seek $60,572.61 for eDiscovery costs as a prevailing party and only get $25.48. Don’t spend it all in one place. The Court denied the eDiscovery costs applying Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012), because[…]
Read moreDefendants in a discovery dispute produced data from a timekeeping database as PDF’s. The Plaintiffs objected, arguing their expert would need to spend 300 to 500 hours converting the PDF’s into a database. The Defendants countered that it would take a team of three to four people between three to[…]
Read moreThank You Litigation World! This article won the LitigationWorld Pick of the Week award. The editors of LitigationWorld, a free weekly email newsletter for litigators and others who work in litigation, give this award to one article every week that they feel is a must-read for this audience. A defendant[…]
Read more
Thank You Litigation World! This article won the LitigationWorld Pick of the Week award. The editors of LitigationWorld, a free weekly email newsletter for litigators and others who work in litigation, give this award to one article every week that they feel is a must-read for this audience. A defendant[…]
Read moreJudge G.R. Smith issued a great reminder that lawyers must “stop and think” when dealing with discovery disputes. This duty is imposed by Rule 26(g) and is “an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discovery in a responsible manner that is consistent with the spirit and purposes of Rules 26 through Rule 37, and[…]
Read moreJudge G.R. Smith issued a great reminder that lawyers must “stop and think” when dealing with discovery disputes. This duty is imposed by Rule 26(g) and is “an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discovery in a responsible manner that is consistent with the spirit and purposes of Rules 26 through Rule 37, and[…]
Read moreUS Senior District Judge John Kane took on multiple discovery disputes against a Plaintiff in a wage an hour case. It is an amazing case study of what could be requested in a case. Requesting Communications Off the Girlfriend’s Computer The Defendants requested all ESI communications regarding the case, which[…]
Read moreIt is not every day you see lawsuits about insurance policies from 1986 to 1987. Add Judge Paul Grimm’s powerhouse footnotes and you get a great lesson in document retention policies and litigation holds (plus a great footnote on the state of mind exception to hearsay for all the evidence[…]
Read more