Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Surviving family members of a Facebook user in Great Britain filed an ex parte application for access to the deceased’s Facebook account to show the deceased’ state of mind for the Coroner’s investigation in Manchester, England. In re Facebook, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134977, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Sept.[…]
Read moreTips on reviewing electronic discovery, including issue tagging for causes of action or defenses and eDiscovery project management.
Read moreIn a dispute over a will and deed transfer, a New York State Court ordered the examination of a lawyer’s computer. The idea of an attorney’s computer being searched by third parties should scare lawyers to death. The attorney objected on the grounds the examination would violate the attorney-client privilege[…]
Read moreParaben Forensic Innovation Conference I am very excited for the 2012 Paraben Forensic Innovation Conference to be held November 3 to 6, 2012 in Park City, Utah. We will have a full eDiscovery & Deposition Bootcamp that includes outstanding attorneys and a Judicial Panel with New York State Judge Matthew Sciarrino,[…]
Read more
Letters versus telegrams. Faxes versus emails. Attorneys must be familiar with the many ways people have communicated in the everyday course of their lives. “Social media” is just another evolution in technology for possible sources of electronically stored information. Robinson v. Jones Lang Lasalle Ams., is a case centering on a motion[…]
Read moreJoshua Gilliland, attorney blogger for www.bowtielaw.com and www.thelegalgeeks.com, discusses Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a), timing for the meet and confer under Rule 26(f), the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference and exclusion for non-disclosure under Rule 37(c)(1). (No part of this video should be considered legal advice).
Read moreAlso Posted on frank! The Nextpoint Blog There are phrases a lawyer never wants to hear a judge say. One is your law firm “acted negligently in failing to comply with its discovery obligations.” Another is your client “acted willfully in failing to comply with its discovery obligations and assist[…]
Read moreForm of Production in eDiscovery A discussion of the form of production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34, plus one recent case. Rationally Organized Productions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E) Production requirements for documents and electronically stored information under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)[…]
Read moreA Producing Party (the Defendant) argued against searching for responsive electronically stored information, claiming “that the mere fact an employee might have discoverable information or relevant knowledge does not necessarily mean she possesses relevant documents.” McNearney v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108386, 14-16 (W.D. Wash. Aug.[…]
Read more
A company outsourcing payroll, human resources and other business services to third parties is standard operating procedure today. However, what happens when there are discovery requests for a party’s business information hosted by a third-party? Such discovery requests caused a court to play butcher to carve out the discovery obligations[…]
Read more