I Fought the Law…The Government’s Discovery Obligations in Civil Litigation

“Like any ordinary litigant, the Government must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is not entitled to special consideration concerning the scope of discovery, especially when it voluntarily initiates an action.”  Judge Scheindlin once again delivered a powerful opinion with SEC v Collins & Aikman Corporation 2009[…]

Read more

Court Orders OCR of Scanned Paper Documents, or Don’t Go to Court Claiming OCR will Cost $200,000

“OCR, while perhaps not absolutely necessary to litigation, is a tool that greatly decreases the time and effort counsel must invest in searching and examining documents. Presumably, each party would perform the OCR process in a cost-effective manner to minimize their costs. Requiring the parties to incur this cost, when[…]

Read more

Whose Search Term is it Anyway?

In Spieker v. Cherokee, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88103 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008), the parties became entangled in a dispute over who created search terms for a set of specific discovery requests.  The Plaintiff had served the Defendant with specifically defined Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 requests[…]

Read more

Discovery Production Workflow: Lessons from Magistrate Judges Facciola & Grimm

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[…]

Read more

Playing with Fire: Producing ESI as Paper

“…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[…]

Read more