Discovery – Page 10 – Bow Tie Law

Discovery Production Workflow: Lessons from Magistrate Judges Facciola & Grimm

February 2, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Motion to Compel, Processing, Request for Production

In my prior posting Playing with Fire: Producing ESI as Paper we looked at the dangers of producing ESI as paper. In addition to the legal analysis, Judge Facciola outlined a workflow for the parties in Covad Communications Company v. Revonet, Inc. The Defendants represented to the Court that it[…]

Playing with Fire: Producing ESI as Paper

January 30, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production

“…Revonet’s producing the e-mails only in hard copy played with fire. ” Magistrate Judge John Facciola, Covad Communications Company v. Revonet, Inc. I have blogged on parties failing to state a form of production in prior postings and producing parties attempting to produce ESI as paper or non-searchable TIFFs. In[…]

Standards to Identify Anonymous Posters for Defamation

January 27, 2009 Josh Gilliland Blogging, Defamation, Discovery, e-Discovery, First Amendment, Social Networking

The internet is creating emerging legal issues, from jurisdiction to discovery. The identification of anonymous bloggers-posting defamatory statements on the internet–is one of those issues. Judge Rory J. Bellantoni, Ottinger v. Non-Party The Journal News In Ottinger v. Non-Party The Journal News, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4579 (N.Y. Sup.[…]

Back on the Record: Tips on Deposition Preparation with Technology

January 21, 2009 Josh Gilliland CT Summation, Deposition, Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery

I have taken and defended a good number of depositions. Preparing for deposition requires thoroughness, thoughtfulness, and not being tied to your question outline like a student actor reading a script. Whether you are “old school” or “new school,” there are many ways to enhance your deposition practice with litigation[…]

Mock Motion in Limine Arguments to Exclude ESI

January 19, 2009 Josh Gilliland CT Summation, Deposition, Discovery, e-Discovery, Mock Trial, Native File, Trial

Michael Berman, Esq., of Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC, argued to excluded email messages and a voice mail at the CT Summation Best Practices Summit, held in Washington, DC on May 20th, 2008. The Best Practices Summit included a mock motion in limine hearing. In the fictional case, the[…]

SURPRISE! First Amendment e-Discovery Objections!

January 15, 2009 Josh Gilliland Blogging, Deposition, Discovery, First Amendment

The Discovery of Electronically Stored Information has many surprises, ranging from stating the form of production, the inadvertent production of privileged material and defensible search terms. A very surprised lawyer fought a First Amendment objection they probably did not see coming during a deposition. In Quixtar Inc. v.[…]

One Pesky Requirement for a Motion to Compel e-Discovery

January 10, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Metadata, Motion to Compel, Native File, Request for Production

There is no shortage of case law on motions to compel native files, metadata and all things dealing with the form of production. However, there is one basic requirement for a motion to compel: You have to have a request for production first. Most motion to compel train wrecks[…]

What Happens When the Requesting Party Does Not State a Form of Production?

January 8, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, Duty of Care, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 allows for a requesting party to state the form of production in their request. In the event a requesting party does not state the form of production, the responding party can state the form of production in their reply. However, if no party[…]

e-Discovery: Not like Reviewing a Box of Paper

January 7, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Request for Production

Treating e-Discovery review the same as a paper-based document review runs the risk of shattering the litigation process. In Oracle v. SAP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88319, the estimated cost of reviewing 165 custodians was projected as $16.5 million. This included the defendants employing more than fifty contract attorneys and[…]