Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
A court should be hesitant to resolve issues that demand technical expertise. Magistrate Judge James C Francis IV In a case with dueling motions to compel, the parties disputed the adequacy of search terms. Magistrate Judge James C Francis IV wrote a profoundly important warning to attorneys and judges on[…]
Read moreA Defendant convicted of murder and attempted murder challenged the admission of three text messages at his trial. The Supreme Court of Arkansas found no error in admitting the text messages. The Stored Communication Act The Defendant challenged the admission of the text message content based on the Stored Communication[…]
Read moreThe Northern District of California should be commended for its new eDiscovery Guidelines, Check List and Model Order. It is a very good first step to raising eDiscovery competency and awareness for attorneys in Silicon Valley. The complete guidelines can be downloaded from Northern District website, which states attorneys should “consult[…]
Read moreThe 5th Paraben Forensic Innovation Conference was held at the Zermatt Resort in Midway, Utah on November 3rd to 6th, 2012. The event was a tour-de-force in education, showcasing multiple forensic and eDiscovery boot camps. I had the honor of coordinating the eDiscovery and Deposition boot camps. Our eDiscovery speakers[…]
Read moreCan a party issue a litigation hold to one of its contractual agents to preserve information by remote control? The answer is yes, yes they can. In Haskins v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., the first issue was whether the Defendant was in “possession, custody, or control” of documents held[…]
Read moreThere are judges who have a way with words when they want to make a point. One example of such judicial prose was by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows in Botell v. United States: At this juncture, the United States has purportedly been looking for documents for months, yet the[…]
Read more
A Plaintiff brought a motion to compel “access to electronic records,” claiming the Defendants had “withheld electronically stored information” and had not produced a “chronological e-mail history of any kind.” Murray v. Coleman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130219, 1-3 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012). The Defense attorney claimed that the Defendant[…]
Read moreTips on reviewing electronic discovery, including issue tagging for causes of action or defenses and eDiscovery project management.
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 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 more