• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Federal District Court Rules

Style Guide for the United States Supreme Court.

06 Wednesday Dec 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Citations, Citations to the Record, Court Rules, Courts, E-Briefs, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Writing, Local Rules, State Appellate Courts, Style Manuals

≈ Comments Off on Style Guide for the United States Supreme Court.

Tags

Legal Skills Prof Blog, Louis J. Sirico Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Style Guide

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Style Guide, by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://bit.ly/2jnq60t

When I was starting out in my paralegal career, I created cheat sheets for filing motions and briefs in state and federal district courts. The rules, especially for federal circuit court briefs, are complex and require checking multiple sections, local rules, e-filing rules, and your judge’s personal court rules (if any exist). I found these cheat sheets were the most popular handouts at my legal writing courses and paralegal seminars, and included them in the Appendix of Practical Legal Writing for Legal Assistants.

Regardless of where you are in your paralegal career, I recommend creating a similar cheat sheet for yourself. Updating your cheat sheet when the rules change force you to examine every addition or revision. Keeping your cheat sheet current will reinforce the rules in your mind, and will help you stay on top of your game.

When it came to analyzing rules for the U.S. Supreme Court, I passed. I left it to the professionals who format and print these briefs for a living. Now, at last, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Style Guide is available for all. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Questions About The New Federal Rules Amendments on Discovery? – 3rd of 5-Part Guide.

26 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Courts, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Preservation

≈ Comments Off on Questions About The New Federal Rules Amendments on Discovery? – 3rd of 5-Part Guide.

Tags

Amended Rules of Federal Civil Procedure, Discovery Advocacy Blog, E-Disocvery, Gary Levin, James A. Sherer, Jonathan Forman, Karin Scholz Jenson, Preservation, Robert J. Tucker

Day 3: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Preservation, by Karin Scholz Jenson, Gary Levin, Robert J. Tucker, James A. Sherer and Jonathan Forman, Discovery Advocacy Blog

http://bit.ly/1NvYTnd

This is the third of five posts discussing the current amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules went into effect December 1, 2015. Today’s post addresses “Preservation.” -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Questions About The New Federal Rules Amendments on Discovery? – 2nd of 5-Part Guide.

26 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Concept Search Tools, Court Rules, Courts, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Preservation, Rule 16 Conference

≈ Comments Off on Questions About The New Federal Rules Amendments on Discovery? – 2nd of 5-Part Guide.

Tags

Amended Rules of Federal Civil Procedure, Discovery Advocate Blog, Early Case Assessment, Gary Levin, James A. Sherer, Jonathan Forman, Karin Scholz Jenson, Preservation, Robert J. Tucker, Rule 16 Conference

Day 2: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Early Case Assessment, by Karin Scholz Jenson, Gary Levin, Robert J. Tucker, James A. Sherer and Jonathan Forman, Discovery Advocate Blog

http://bit.ly/1jluREF

The current amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and, in particular, those that address the practice of civil discovery—are the product of five years of development, debate, and, of course, dialogue. Now that the Rules are set to be implemented on December 1, 2015 – and they apply to pending cases where ‘just and practicable’ — the focus among attorneys and their clients has changed from what the Rules should say to how they should work. While debates remain as to how certain parts of the Rules will wear-and-tear once put to the test in discovery, there are clear indications within the text of the Rules (with some help from the Committee Notes to the Rules and the contributions of judges and other writers) as to how the Rules will apply. . . .

Today we review: Early Case Assessment.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Effective December 1, 2015.

11 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Courts, Federal District Court Rules

≈ Comments Off on The Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Effective December 1, 2015.

Tags

Cornell University Law School, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Legal Information Institute

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

The full text of every federal civil procedure rule, including Notes and Committee Notes. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Big Changes For Civil Cases In The Southern District Of New York.

09 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Courts, E-Docketing, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Recent Links and Articles, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Big Changes For Civil Cases In The Southern District Of New York.

Tags

Above the Law, E-Filing, Gaston Kroub, Southern District of New York

Beyond Biglaw: The End of Paper Filing in the S.D.N.Y., by Gaston Kroub, Above The Law Blog

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/06/beyond-biglaw-the-end-of-paper-filing-in-the-s-d-n-y/

Yesterday marked the beginning of a new era for those who file civil cases in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.). Considering its status as one of the nation’s oldest, most prestigious Districts Courts, with a corresponding docket full of high-profile civil (and criminal) cases, the change from ‘paper filing’ to electronic filing is an important one. The announcement that the District would be going to electronic filing was in itself a bit surprising, considering that the clerk’s office and judges had resisted the temptation for many years. But change is constant, and starting yesterday [June 9, 2015], filing civil cases in the S.D.N.Y. will be done electronically in the vast majority of cases. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Can You Use iPads or iPhones in Court? Maybe – Maybe Not.

03 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Android Phones, Appellate Law, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Court Rules, Courts, Federal District Court Rules, iPad, iPhones, Laptop, Legal Technology, Local Rules, Oral Argument

≈ Comments Off on Can You Use iPads or iPhones in Court? Maybe – Maybe Not.

Tags

Court Rules, iPads, iPhone J.D. Blog, iPhones, Jeff Richardson, Legal Technology & Tips

Court Rules on iPhone, iPad Use, by Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog (with hat tip to Ray Ward, Louisiana Civil Appeals Blog)

http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2015/03/court-rules.html

If there are rules for or against using any type of technology in a courtroom, you will normally find the court’s preference in its local rules. Courts don’t write local rules just for fun. They mean it when they say they don’t like something. If your court clearly states in its local rules that certain types of technology are not tolerated, don’t temp fate by assuming that you will be the exception.

Please note the comments at the end of the article. There is more valuable information about other court rules. -CCE

There are countless ways that an iPhone and iPad can be useful to an attorney while in court — whether you are at counsel table or just monitoring proceedings from the cheap seats in back. I often use my iPhone to look up a statute, check my calendar, get some information from an email, or remind myself of the name of another attorney in the courtroom. I often use my iPad to look at a case cited by an opponent, review the key part of an exhibit or transcript, or take notes. But you cannot do any of this unless the court lets you use electronic devices in the courtroom. I remember a time many years ago when the Eastern District of Louisiana did not allow any cell phones, even if turned off, and if my Palm Treo was still in my pocket, I had to walk back to my office, a few blocks away, and leave it there. Many courts are now more lenient, but attorneys should not just assume that it is okay to plan to use an iPhone and iPad in court. Instead, it is wise to first determine if there is an applicable court rule on the issue.

I write about this today because Ray Ward, an appellate attorney at my law firm, has a case that is soon set for oral argument before the U.S. Fifth Circuit, and in connection with that case, yesterday he received a notice from the Fifth Circuit of a new policy on electronic devices in the courtroom. Ray wrote about the notice (and attached a copy) in this post on his Louisiana Civil Appeals blog. In short, you can now have an iPhone or iPad in the courtroom, but it must be turned off unless you are presenting argument or at counsel table. And even then, you cannot take pictures or video, nor can you use social media. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Honey Pot of Federal Court E-Discovery Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines.

18 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bankruptcy Court Rules, Court Rules, Courts, Discovery, E-Discovery, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Local Rules

≈ Comments Off on Honey Pot of Federal Court E-Discovery Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines.

Tags

Bankruptcy Court Rules, E-Discovery, E-Discovery Court Rules, E-Filing, ESI, K&L Gates, Local Court Rules, U.S. District Court Rules

Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues, Electronic Discovery Law Blog, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/p3d6srx

No doubt many of you have already have bookmarked this site. K&L Gates compiled this comprehensive list of local rules, forms and guidelines for U.S. District Courts and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. At the bottom of their post, you will find a link that will take you directly to the U.S. Court’s website of all federal court rules. Thank you, K&L Gates. -CCE

Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues

Many United States District Courts now require compliance with special local rules, forms, or guidelines addressing the discovery of electronically stored information. Below is a collection of those local rules, forms and guidelines, with links to the relevant materials. Please note also that many individual judges and magistrate judges have created their own forms or have crafted their own preferred protocols for e-discovery. These are generally available on the website of the individual judge or magistrate judge and care should be taken to ensure you are aware of any such forms or guidelines in any court you may appear in.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Happens When No Written Notice Is Given To Offer An Exhibit?

30 Saturday Aug 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Admissibility, Appellate Law, Authentication, Court Rules, Court Rules, Courts, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Rule 803 Exception, Rule 902

≈ Comments Off on What Happens When No Written Notice Is Given To Offer An Exhibit?

Tags

Colin Miller, Court Record, EvidenceProf Blog, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901(11), Second Circuit

Did You Notice That?: 2nd Circuit Excuses Lack of Written Notice Under Rule 902(11), by Evidence ProfBlogger, Editor: Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/o98a788

The original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that complies with a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.

So, what happens if a party does not give reasonable written notice of its intent to offer a business record into evidence but there is evidence that the opposing party had actual notice of this intent? That was the question addressed by the Second Circuit in its recent opinion in United States v. Komasa, 2014 WL 4233396 (2nd Cir. 2014). . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Proposed Amendments to Federal Civil Procedure Rules Are Close to Approval.

08 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Courts, Depositions, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Rules of Discovery, Interrogatories, Preservation, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Proposed Amendments to Federal Civil Procedure Rules Are Close to Approval.

Tags

Court Rules, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, K&L Gates, Standing Committee

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Standing Committee”) Approves Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by K&L Gates, posted in FEDERAL RULES AMENDMENTS, NEWS & UPDATES.

http://tinyurl.com/myroxzm

The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be finalized sometime in September. -CCE

Last week, the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Standing Committee”) approved proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the “Duke Rules Package,” addressing Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, and 34 and a rewritten version of Rule 37(e), addressing preservation.  The proposed amendments were approved with only two revisions to the proposed Committee Notes for Rules 26(b)(1) (encouraging consideration and use of technology) and 37(e) (clarifying the role of prejudice in subsection (e)(2) of the proposed rule).  Meeting minutes reflecting the precise changes to the Committee Notes are not yet available, although the text of the rules as adopted was published in the Standing Committee’s meeting Agenda Book, available here.

The next stop for the proposed amendments is the Judicial Conference, which will consider the proposed amendments at its meeting in September.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Garner’s Interview With Appellate Judges On Oral Argument and Brief Writing.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Court Rules, Courts, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Judges, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Statement of Facts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Garner’s Interview With Appellate Judges On Oral Argument and Brief Writing.

Tags

Brief Writing, Bryan Garner, Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, Judge Frank Easterbrook, Judge Pierre Leval, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Jurisdiction, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Oral Argument, Scribes Journal of Legal Writing

Scribes Journal Presents Interviews With Judges, By Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/najqatd

In the latest issue of the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, Bryan Garner continues his series Scribes 5-14of interviews with judges. This time he talks with five United States Court of Appeals judges to collect some inside information about brief writing and oral argument. Here are some of the judges’ pithy quotes:

Judge (and former Chief Judge) Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit said a lawyer should know why the court has jurisdiction. He imagines having a button he could press to send a lawyer out to the street if the lawyer can’t explain the basis for appellate jurisdiction. ‘Because if we don’t have jurisdiction, why are we here?’

Judge Pierre Leval of the Second Circuit said the first thing he looks at in a brief is the argument headings ‘to get a sense of what’s involved.’  Then he can read the facts in context.

Chief Judge Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit said many lawyers look ‘frozen’ when a judge asks a question. But instead, they should think, ‘This is a great way that I can hit a few more balls out of the park; I can help my case.’

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit likes briefs written in ‘simple, clear sentences.’ And he likes ‘a story that flows so you can tell what it’s about and why . . . something I can follow easily.’ . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Learning E-Filing and E-Docketing the Hard Way.

27 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Courts, E-Docketing, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Technology, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

≈ Comments Off on Learning E-Filing and E-Docketing the Hard Way.

Tags

E-Discovery, E-Filing, E-Mail, E-Notices, Excusable Neglect, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure, Good Cause, Jr., Richard B. Phillips, Scott P. Stolley, Texas Appellate Watch

A Painful Lesson in the Pitfalls of E-Filing and E-Docketing, by Scott P. Stolley and Richard B. Phillips, Jr., Texas Appellate Watch

http://tinyurl.com/ma6head

As mandatory e-filing (and the accompanying switch to e-service, e-dockets, and e-notices) spreads across Texas, we need to adopt new standard practices to ensure that we fulfill our duties to our clients. An appeal pending in the Federal Circuit provides a cautionary tale that should not be ignored. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

E-Discovery Federal Rule Amendments and More.

06 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bankruptcy Law, Case Law, Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Law, Litigation, Mandatory Law, Metadata, Preservation, Primary Law, Regulations, Research, Sanctions, State Law, Statutes, Technology, The Sedona Conference, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery Federal Rule Amendments and More.

Tags

Bankruptcy Law, Case Summaries, E-Discovery, K&L Gates, Legal Research, Local Rules, Sedona Conference, State Court E-Discovery Rules

Category Archives: FEDERAL RULES AMENDMENTS, by Electronic Discovery, K&L Gates

http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/articles/federal-rules-amendments/

 Notice and analysis of electronic discovery federal rule amendments. You can count on this website to be updated promptly and the information and analysis is accurate. Free subscription by RSS feed.

While you are there, it is worth your time to browse the variety of information published by K&L Gates. They are experts on e-discovery. You will find, among other things:

  • E-Discovery Case Database <http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/e-discovery-case-database/>;
  • State Court Rules on E-Discovery <http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/state-district-court-rules/>; and
  • Case Summaries <http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/articles/case-summaries/>; and
  • Resources <http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/articles/resources/>.

Just poke around. I do not think you will be disappointed. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Skype For Video Depositions?

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Depositions, Discovery, Employment Law, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Rules of Discovery, Video Deposition

≈ Comments Off on Skype For Video Depositions?

Tags

Bow Tie Law’s Blog, Deposition, Discovery Dispute, Federal Rule 26(g), Federal Rules of Discovery, Hernandez v. Hendrix Produce, Joshua Gilliland, Judge G.R. Smith, Meet and Confer, Skype, Video Deposition

“Stop and Think” About Skype for Depositions, by Joshua Gilliland, Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/another-skyping-judge/

Judge 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 obligates each attorney to stop and think about the legitimacy of a discovery request, a response thereto, or an objection.’ Hernandez v. Hendrix Produce, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4837 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2014) citing Bottoms v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143251, 2011 WL 6181423 at * 4 (D. Colo. Dec. 13, 2011). 

The case at issue requiring lawyers to ‘stop and think’ involved the plaintiffs in a farmworker rights lawsuit. Three of the plaintiffs were in Mexico and unable to return to Georgia for their depositions. The Defendants wanted the depositions to be held in Georgia. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Latest Ninth Circuit Decision on Rule 26 Discovery From Testifying Experts.

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Attorney Work Product, Court Rules, Court Rules, Discovery, Evidence, Expert Witness, Experts, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Rules of Evidence, Requests for Production, Rule 26, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Latest Ninth Circuit Decision on Rule 26 Discovery From Testifying Experts.

Tags

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chevron, Cogent Legal Blog, Court Rules, Expert Witnesses, Federal Rule 26, Michael Kelleher, Paul Hastings, Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, Work Product Objection

Ninth Circuit Rules on Scope of Discovery from Testifying Experts, by Michael Kelleher, Cogent Legal Blog

http://tinyurl.com/knvhgv2

[A] new Ninth Circuit decision about the scope of expert discovery in federal court caught our attention. The decision in Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, No. 12-15572 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2014) poses the question: where the expert has served both as a confidential advisor to counsel and as a testifying expert, may counsel withhold documents shared with the expert by asserting an opinion work product objection? The short answer is no—documents from testifying experts must be produced unless protected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4).

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Free App to Access PACER on iPhones and iPads.

30 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Apps, Bankruptcy Law, Cell Phones, Dockets, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Law, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, PACER, Trial Tips and Techniques, U.S. Courts of Appeal

≈ Comments Off on Free App to Access PACER on iPhones and iPads.

Tags

Bankruptcy Court, Docket, Federal Court, iPads, iPhone J.D. Blog, iPhones, Jeff Richardson, Matthew Zorn, PACER

Review: DkT — access PACER on the iPad and iPhone, by Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog

http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2014/01/review-dkt-pacer.html

Jeff reviews a free app created by Matthew Zorn called “DkT.” In this post, Jeff leads you through the various steps to use this app. Because this is the first version, no doubt Matthew will tweak it as time goes by. Regardless of its minor flaws, if you practice in federal court, this is an incredibly useful tool for your iPad or iPhone. -CCE

If you ever practice in federal court, then using PACER is a part of your job.  PACER websites typically let you select a mobile option so that you can access PACER on an iPad or an iPhone, but the experience isn’t ideal.  You cannot save your username or password, it is difficult to manually enter case numbers, and every time you access a docket sheet or a document you have to pay to do so.  Matthew Zorn, an attorney at a large New York law firm, decided to do something about that, so he spent nine months writing a useful and beautifully designed app that he calls DkT.  The DkT app is free and can access PACER for federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Counsel Scalded by Federal District Court’s E-Discovery Opinion.

21 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Cell Phones, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Requests for Production, Sanctions, Sanctions, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Counsel Scalded by Federal District Court’s E-Discovery Opinion.

Tags

E-Discovery, Electronic discovery, Gareth Evans, Gibson Dunn, Judge David Herndon, Law Technology News, Mobile Phones, Sanctions, Text Messages, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Perils of E-Discovery Reflected in Sanctions Opinion, by Gareth Evans, a litigation partner at Gibson Dunn, Law Technology News

http://tinyurl.com/kcksw5v

Lest anyone think that hair-raising e-discovery sanctions opinions are a thing of the past, U.S. District Judge David Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois issued a blistering 51-page opinion (PDF) imposing nearly $1 million in punitive sanctions on the defendants in In re Pradaxa Products Liability Litigation on Dec. 9, 2013, and indicated that more sanctions are almost certainly on the way.

The case is an example of how electronic data discovery generally, and implementing legal holds in particular, can be fraught with peril.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Was It Appropriate to Produce Word Documents as PDF Files?

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Adobe Acrobat, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Metadata, Native Format, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques, Word

≈ Comments Off on Was It Appropriate to Produce Word Documents as PDF Files?

Tags

.pdf, Bow Tie Law Blog, E-Discovery, Joshua Gilliland, Magistrate Judge William Hussmann, Microsoft Word, Native Files, Request for Production

Who Knew What When About the Form of Production, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/who-knew-what-when-about-the-form-of-production/

Magistrate Judge William Hussmann put a new spin on form of production analysis in Crissen v. Gupta: What form was discovery in and when was it in that form?

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Changes To Federal Subpoena Amendments Effective December 1, 2013.

28 Thursday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Subpoenas

≈ Comments Off on Changes To Federal Subpoena Amendments Effective December 1, 2013.

Tags

Federal Rules, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Litigation Blog, Subpoena, Tony Lathrop

The Streamlined Subpoena Power under Amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 – Effective December 1, 2013, Barring Congressional Action, by Tony Lathrop, Litigation Blog

http://tinyurl.com/luyjbu4

 On December 1, 2013, some of the most long-awaited changes to the Civil Rules will take effect – the proposed amendments to Rule 45, which governs the use of subpoenas in federal civil actions.

 *     *     *

The major changes to Rule 45 include: (1) simplifying the rules regarding the court issuing a subpoena, (2) highlighting the notice requirements for document-only subpoenas, (3) clarifying the circumstances under which an officer of a party may be compelled to testify at trial, and (4) permitting the transfer of motions regarding enforcement of a subpoena.  We highlight the substance of these changes below, and provide a brief update regarding the status of the Discovery Amendments.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Court Says E-Discovery Search is “Easier Said Than Done”

17 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Says E-Discovery Search is “Easier Said Than Done”

Tags

BowTie Blog, Discovery, E-Discovery, ESI, Joshua Gilliland, Judge William Orrick

Triangulating Discovery Productions, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., BowTie Blog

http://tinyurl.com/key6ugd

 Judge William Orrick summed up a basic truth of eDiscovery: In the age of electronically-stored information (“ESI”), production of all relevant, not privileged and reasonably accessible documents in a company’s custody and control is easier said than done. Banas v. Volcano Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144139, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013).

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit to date.

12 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Law, Court Rules, Federal District Court Rules, Judges, Recent Links and Articles, Research, Statutes, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit to date.

Tags

Hercules and the Umpire, Hon. George Richard Kopf, Judge Scheindlin, Removal of federal judge, Stop-and-frisk, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

I have been following the updates about Judge Scheindlin on Judge Kopf’s blog, Hercules and the umpire. If you recall, this series began with Judge Scheindlin’s ruling on the current stop-and-frisk law in her jurisdiction, and her subsequent, hasty, and unprecedented (to my knowledge) removal by the Second Circuit of the Court of Appeals.  All related posts are below, and start with the first post by Judge Kopf. The Comments are equally interesting. CCE

What do you think about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin? – http://bit.ly/1cyvhiH (Posted here on November 2, 2013)

 A Cheat Shot – http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/11/03/a-cheap-shot/

More on “relatedness,” Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit — http://bit.ly/1cTmax4

In answer to Scott H. Greenfield regarding the Second Circuit’s treatment of Judge Scheindlin — http://bit.ly/17EEqZ9

“Do not go gentle into that good night . . . ” Dylan Thomas and Judge Scheindlin – http://bit.ly/1a39Re3

The filing by counsel for Judge Scheindlin — http://bit.ly/1c1GXcL

Kopf’s questions about the continuing but utterly depressing cage match at the Second Circuit? — http://bit.ly/1blVy2F

End it quickly – http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/11/11/end-it-quickly/ (Posted here on November 12, 2013)

A must read essay on Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit — http://bit.ly/19XlseL  (Posted here on November 12, 2013)

Judge Scheindlin was wrong to enter the fray at the Second Circuit — http://bit.ly/1eJ21tw

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

End it quickly

12 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Court Rules, Federal District Court Rules

≈ Comments Off on End it quickly

Tags

2nd Circuit, Judge Richard G. Kopf, Judge Scheindlin, Removal of federal judge

More on the situation in the 2nd Circuit.

Hercules and the umpire.

If the Second Circuit has any sense, an order like the following would be entered today:

Various motions are pending. One has been filed by the district judge. One been filed by the appellees and one has been filed by the appellants. They all seek further and other relief as a result of our prior order staying these cases and requiring that a new district judge be assigned.

After due consideration, we deny all the motions. We also strike from our prior order the finding that the trial judge violated the Code of Conduct. However, that portion of our prior order staying these matters and requiring that a new trial judge be assigned to these cases remains effective. Finally, we refer these cases to the Clerk of Court for reassignment to a new panel. In doing so, we note that the Court en banc has this date denied all requests…

View original post 24 more words

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

What do you think about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin?

02 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Case Law, Court Rules, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Law, Legal Ethics, Recent Links and Articles, Research, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on What do you think about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin?

Tags

New York City Police Department, Removal of federal judge, Shira Scheindlin, Stop-and-frisk program, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

As always, Judge Kopf asks an interesting question. CCE

Hercules and the umpire.

Judge Scheindlin is a New York federal trial judge who has taken senior status.* She was handling high profile cases involving New York’s “stop and frisk” practices. She issued an opinion providing remedial relief and an injunction to the folks who were challenging the police department’s practices, and up the case went to the Second Circuit. On Thursday, without ruling on the merits of the appeal, and acting on its own without a request from the appellants, the Second Circuit removed Scheindlin.  The Court stated that the trial judge had violated the Code of Conduct and failed in her responsibility to uphold the appearance of impartiality (1) because of her statements to the parties regarding “related” cases and (2) because of interviews she gave to the media. The Second Circuit’s short opinion is here. Liberal legal commentators exploded in outrage. See, for example, here and here. The…

View original post 46 more words

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

A Discussion of the Burdens of Preserving E-Discovery

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules

≈ Comments Off on A Discussion of the Burdens of Preserving E-Discovery

Tags

Brian H. Pandya, Discovery, E-Discovery, Proposed Court Rules

E-Discovery: Relieving The Burdens Of Preservation, The Editor interviews Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel
http://bit.ly/1c5fVG3

Please take particular note the linked articles on e-discovery at the end of the interview. CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Ralph Losey’s Simplified Version of the Proposed Federal E-Discovery Rules Changes

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules

≈ Comments Off on Ralph Losey’s Simplified Version of the Proposed Federal E-Discovery Rules Changes

Tags

E-Discovery, Evidence, Proposed Federal Rules, Ralph Losey

Proposed Rules, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team ®
http://e-discoveryteam.com/proposed/

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Spring 2013 Case Law Update on E-Discovery Self-Collection – When It’s Okay, When It’s Not, and the Potential Risks

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Court Rules, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Spring 2013 Case Law Update on E-Discovery Self-Collection – When It’s Okay, When It’s Not, and the Potential Risks

Tags

Case Law, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Sanctions, Spoliation

Self-Collection: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, by Tony Merlino, DTI
http://dtiglobal.com/resources/articles/spring-2013-case-law-update/

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 454 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: