Category Archives: Discovery

“Lock Down” Your Bates Numbers To Prevent Edits By Opposing Counsel.

16 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, Bates Numbering, Bates Numbers, Discovery, E-Discovery, Legal Technology, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on “Lock Down” Your Bates Numbers To Prevent Edits By Opposing Counsel.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Preventing Edits To Bates Numbers Applied In Acrobat, by Rick Borstein, Acrobat for Legal Professionals Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lvc4j87

If your job is anything like mine, you use Adobe Acrobat to Bates number documents all the time. There are many reasons to use a Bates numbering system. One of the top reasons is that it helps to eliminate confusion and keeps documents organized.

If opposing counsel can change the Bates numbers on your produced documents, it can create havoc. I do not like havoc, especially when I have spent a lot of time and my client’s money to create a neatly Bates-numbered set of documents. Thank you, Mr. Borstein! -CCE

[T]he ability to remove Bates Numbers is valuable in case you make a mistake during the numbering process. However, due to the adversarial nature of the legal business, attorneys may desire to limit what the other side can do with documents.

To whit, this email I received from an attorney last week:

What can I use to flatten Bates numbers so that they cannot be altered or removed using the Acrobat Bates numbering process?

I know I can print to PDF, save as TIFF, print-then-scan, etc., but am looking for a solution that will work in batch mode and not degrade the appearance of the file. Also, I don’t favor using security settings because I don’t want to restrict the user’s ability to access the file.

In this article, I’ll discuss how to ‘lock down’ Bates Numbers so that they cannot be removed by Acrobat’s ‘Remove Bates’ option. . . .

Want To Take Better Depositions? Follow The Basics.

03 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Depositions, Discovery

≈ Comments Off on Want To Take Better Depositions? Follow The Basics.

Tags

, ,

Six Steps to Better Depositions, by Evan Schaeffer, Lawyerist Blog

https://lawyerist.com/78538/six-steps-better-depositions/

Evan Shaeffer is one of my favorites. The art of taking a deposition is one of his specialities. -CCE

My first depositions were often frightening experiences. Like most new lawyers, I plunged ahead and tried to do my best, but I rarely felt at ease.

As my discomfort gave way to confidence, I developed techniques I began to use at every deposition. What follow are guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules. But I consider these techniques so useful I continue to use them today. . . .

Is It That Hard To Follow Rule 34? Not According To The Judge.

28 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by in E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production, Rule 34

≈ Comments Off on Is It That Hard To Follow Rule 34? Not According To The Judge.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Rule 34: As Basic As You Get, by Joseph Gilliland, Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mbrcqlf

Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal is one of the new heroes of eDiscovery jurisprudence. In Venture Corp. Ltd. v. Barrett, the good Judge opened with the following on Rule 34:

Most lawyers (and hopefully judges) would be forgiven if they could not recite on demand some of the more obscure of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 80 (Stenographic Transcript as Evidence) and Rule 64 (Seizing a Person or Property) come to mind. But Rule 34 (Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things) is about as basic to any civil case as it gets. And yet, over and over again, the undersigned is confronted with misapprehension of its standards and elements by even experienced counsel. Unfortunately, this case presents yet another example.

Venture Corp. Ltd. v. Barrett, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147643, 1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2014).

Here is what happened: The Defendant served discovery requests on the Plaintiff and wanted the discovery and organized and labeled to identify the requests to which they were responsive; The Plaintiff did not want to do that and instead produced 41,000 pages of discovery, which ended with the Court ordering re-production for not following either Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) or (ii). Venture Corp. Ltd., at *1-2.

The Tactical Document Dump

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 is supposed to prevent the ‘document dump,’ which was the attorney Cold War equivalent of a doomsday weapon. . . .

To Decide Motion To Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Was “Fair.”

08 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Intellectual Property, Motion to Compel, Patent Law, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on To Decide Motion To Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Was “Fair.”

Tags

, , , , ,

Considering Motion to Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Responses Have Been “Fair,” by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/kkgomaa

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5321095 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014)

In this patent infringement case, Defendant objected to ‘producing custodial email from archival systems when [the Plaintiff] is not able to do the same in return.’ Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. In assessing the motion, the court recognized potential limitations on discovery, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).  The court indicated that, ‘[r]educed to its essence, Rule 26(b)(2)(iii) [sic] requires this court to decide: have Blue Coat’s discovery responses been fair?’  In response, the court concluded that the defendant’s responses had ‘largely been fair, but not entirely.’ Turning specifically to the question of custodial emails, the court reasoned:

Where Blue Coat has been less than fair is with respect to archival email for its eight custodians. Blue Coat may largely be in the right that it should not have to dig through legacy systems when Finjan is unable to the same for its custodians. But one party’s discovery shortcomings are rarely enough to justify another’s. And here, at least with respect to documents mentioning Finjan—the one specific category of documents Finjan could identify that it needed from archived email—Finjan’s request is reasonable.

A full copy of the court’s opinion is available here.

Witness Preparation = Successful Depositions.

22 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Advertising, Depositions, Discovery, Law Office Management, Marketing, Objections, Video Deposition

≈ Comments Off on Witness Preparation = Successful Depositions.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Witness Preparation: Best Practices for a Successful Deposition, by Jim Calloway, Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips Blog

http://tinyurl.com/osk8vkn

Jim Calloway is a superhero masquerading as the Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program. While that being the Director of the OBA’s Management Assistant Program may be Jim’s “day job,” Jim does far more than that. This link will tell you more about his other activities, and I have no idea where he finds the time: http://jimcalloway.typepad.com/about.html.

But the best thing about Jim is that we found him first! And we know a good thing when we see it. We may share him with the rest of you from time to time, but luckily Jim has – so far – always called Oklahoma his home. -CCE

Witness Preparation: Best Practices for a Successful Deposition is a really nice article by Tulsa, Oklahoma attorney Robert P. Redemann. I strongly recommend it to any lawyer, even those who might not be involved with depositions. Sometimes it is good to understand best practices in our profession. Share the link with a young lawyer you know.

I would add one other item. Have you looked at the materials you routinely give the client to prepare for a deposition recently? Surely all law firms have progressed past the point of giving clients photocopied deposition tips in favor of custom-prepared materials with the law firm’s name, address and logo. But if you have not reviewed your handouts lately, take a look. A good proofing and freshening is often in order. Use some different sized fonts, headers, text boxes or insert a small graphic or two to increase readability. You never know who may be looking at this document sometime as a representation of your firm’s work product. Make this a professional document you are proud to have carry your firm’s name.

Craig Ball’s E-Discovery Tips For Judges.

18 Saturday Oct 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball’s E-Discovery Tips For Judges.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

10 E-Discovery Tips for Judges, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/1370/

I speak with a lot of judges about e-discovery and digital evidence.  I’ve taught at Federal Judicial Center programs from coast-to-coast and addressed confabs of judges in various states. Some of these presentations have turned into annual pilgrimages.  Have PowerPoint.  Will travel.

It’s a privilege to address judges because, among their own, judges are more cordial, relaxed and candid than in their courtrooms.  But, it’s also a responsibility and a challenge.  In the state systems, I can often be a judge’s first exposure to e-discovery.

Lawyers want the quick course in e-discovery.  They expect to glean ESI skills in minutes, before they glaze over with the talk of metadata and forms of production. Lawyers seek the canned checklist or scripted list of questions, and little care if they understand what the check boxes mean or what the follow up question should be.

It drives me bonkers. . . .

Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Employment Law, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Race Discrimination, Sanctions, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Don’t Hit That Delete Button: An Update On Litigation Holds For Employment Claims, by Andrew P. Sherrod, Inside Counsel Magazine

http://tinyurl.com/ka6thgo

By now, most companies are — or at least should be — well aware of their obligation to preserve relevant documents and electronic information when they reasonably anticipate litigation. This duty can arise in many contexts, but employment complaints are a prime example. Despite the multitude of judicial decisions and articles on the subject, companies continue to hinder their defense of employment claims by failing to undertake appropriate preservation measures.

The consequences of failing to implement and monitor a litigation hold in response to an employment claim were reinforced in a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Hawley v. Mphasis Corp.

In Hawley, an employee of the defendant company claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his ethnicity in a number of ways during the course of his employment. The employee filed an EEOC charge of race and national origin discrimination in September 2009. The company terminated the employee in November 2009, and he thereafter filed a second EEOC charge, which was mailed to the company in December 2009. The employee then filed a discrimination suit in January 2012 against the company under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state civil rights laws.

During his employment, the plaintiff received a company-issued laptop computer on which he was required to perform his work. After his termination, the employee returned the computer to the company in December 2009. The next month, the company reassigned the computer to another employee, permanently deleting all of the plaintiff’s data.

The company also waited until April 2012 — almost three months after the filing of the plaintiff employee’s lawsuit and more than two years after his EEOC charges — to instruct the plaintiff’s supervisor and several other employees to preserve all documents and communications related to the plaintiff. . . .

Philadelphia Legal Opinion on Duty to Preserve Social Media Evidence.

25 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by in Admissibility, Authentication, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Litigation Hold, Metadata, Preservation, Social Media

≈ Comments Off on Philadelphia Legal Opinion on Duty to Preserve Social Media Evidence.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Lawyer’s Duty to Preserve Social Media Evidence, by Hayes Hunt and Jeffrey Monhait, From the Sidebar Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nn6tmor

Lawyers must take ‘appropriate’ steps to preserve their clients’ potentially relevant and discoverable social media evidence. That is the key take-away from an ethics opinion recently issued by the Philadelphia Bar Association. However, lawyers may advise a client to restrict access to the client’s social media so long as the attorney neither instructs nor permits the client to permanently destroy that information. An attorney may even instruct a client to delete information from the client’s page if the attorney preserves that information, including metadata.

You Can Hide, But You Must Preserve
Changing social media settings to ‘private’ merely restricts who may access a web page. The opposing party can still access relevant and discoverable information through discovery or by issuing a subpoena. The committee concluded that this position satisfied Rule 3.4’s prohibition against altering or destroying evidence. As long as the attorney preserves the complete evidentiary record, including metadata, an attorney may advise a client to restrict access to the client’s social media evidence, or remove social media content entirely.

You ‘Must’ Produce Complete Social Media Content
To comply with discovery requests, a lawyer ‘must’ produce the client’s complete social media content if the attorney is aware of this content’s existence. This duty arises from Rule 4.1, which prohibits attorneys from making ‘a false statement of material fact or law to a third person,’ and Rule 8.4, which prohibits ‘conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.’ A lawyer that purposefully omits portions of social media content, or permits or directs the client to destroy social media content, violates these rules.

Also, a lawyer must take reasonable steps to obtain relevant information from the client when the lawyer ‘reasonably believes’ that the client possesses relevant information, such as photographs, links, or other social media content. Despite being obligated to take reasonable steps, a lawyer need not obtain information that was neither in the client’s possession nor the lawyer’s possession.
Frankly, this isn’t groundbreaking or a new duty, it merely reinforces the need for lawyers to better understand social media for purposes of litigation.

Bad Stipulations To E-Discovery – Just Don’t.

11 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Legal Technology, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Bad Stipulations To E-Discovery – Just Don’t.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Don’t Stipulate to Not Follow the Form of Production Rules, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

 http://tinyurl.com/kxr9gt5

Here is my advice: NEVER agree to a stipulation to produce native files when “it is more practical to do so” and agree to productions in PAPER, PDF’s, or TIFFs. Melian Labs v. Triology LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124343 (N.D. Cal.Sept. 4, 2014).

That is what happened in Melian Labs v. Triology LLC. It reads like a personal Sum of All Fears for anyone who has spent years working with ESI, because the Court denied motions to compel email and spreadsheets in native files with metadata, because of the parties’ Rule 26(f) stipulation. . . .

Avoidable E-Discovery Mistake – A Good Lesson on Proportionality.

02 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Interrogatories, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Avoidable E-Discovery Mistake – A Good Lesson on Proportionality.

Tags

, , , , ,

Nebraska, Where Proportionality is Alive and Well in Discovery, by Joshua Gilliand, Esq., Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/qgymkto

One lesson from United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, is that maybe you should take depositions of key parties and use interrogatories to find out relevant information to your case before asking for over 40,000 records that contain the personal information of unrelated third-parties to a lawsuit. . . .

Craig Ball On An Essential Lawyer Skill – The Custodial Hold.

23 Saturday Aug 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation Hold, Preservation

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball On An Essential Lawyer Skill – The Custodial Hold.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Custodial Hold: Trust But Verify, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/custodial-hold-trust-but-verify/

Please click on the link to the Pension Committee opinion (you’ll see it in Craig Ball’s article). You’re getting two for one here. Besides, when it’s Craig Ball, you know it’s going to be good. -CCE

Long before the Pension Committee opinion, my dear friend and revered colleague, Browning Marean, presciently observed that the ability to frame and implement a legal hold would prove an essential lawyer skill.  Browning understood, as many lawyers are only now coming to appreciate, that ‘legal hold’ is more than just a communique.  It’s a multi-pronged, organic process that must be tailored to the needs of the case like a fine suit of clothes.  For all the sensible emphasis on use of a repeatable process, the most successful and cost-effective legal holds demonstrate a bespoke character from the practiced hand of an awake, aware and able attorney.

Unfortunately, that deliberate, evolving character is one of the two things that people hate most about legal holds (the other being the cost).  They want legal hold to be a checklist, a form letter, a tool–all of which have value, but none of which suffice, individually or collectively, to forestall the need for a capable person who understands the ESI environment and is accountable for getting the legal hold right.  It’s a balancing act; one maximizing the retention of relevant, material, non-duplicative information while minimizing the cost, complexity and business disruption attendant to meeting one’s legal responsibilities.  Achieving balance means you can’t choose one or the other, you need both. . . .

Federal Judge Benchslaps Counsel For Discovery Abuse In A Very Special Way.

03 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by in Depositions, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Objections, Sanctions, U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Iowa

≈ Comments Off on Federal Judge Benchslaps Counsel For Discovery Abuse In A Very Special Way.

Tags

, , , , ,

Biglaw Firm Ordered To Make A Video Apologizing For Discovery Abuses, by Joe Patrice, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/k9srego

Litigators get away with a lot of obnoxious stuff during discovery. For better or worse, the pre-trial discovery phase of civil litigation is every lawyer’s opportunity to relive those times when parents leave kids alone for the first time: every slight, disagreement, and jealousy on a slow boil explodes into anarchic back-biting once there’s no authority figure around to enforce civility. Bring on the mean-spirited letters and smack-talking RFAs.

When it comes to depositions, it doesn’t always reach ‘fatboy’ levels, but a federal deposition isn’t a deposition until someone threatens to call the magistrate — though never does.

Which is why this benchslap, where a federal judge levies a sanction straight out of elementary school, is so appropriate….

Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

27 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Android Phones, Appellate Law, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Computer Forensics, Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Experts, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Expert Witness, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Google, Internet, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Mac, PC Computers, Privacy, Search Warrants, Tablets, Trial Tips and Techniques, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Federal Judge Rules Gmail Account Can Be Accessed For Investigation, by evanino in Evanino Blog

http://www.evanino.com/federal-judge-rules-gmail-account-can-accessed-investigation/

In a landmark ruling that might fuel a nationwide debate, the New York Court issued a warrant against Google, giving access to user emails.

A New York Court issued a warrant against Google Inc ruling that the government can access all mails of a Gmail account of an individual under a money laundering probe. The judge said that courts have long been waiting for law enforcement to take the required documents in the custody if it is within the purview of the warrant.

Contrary to previous rulings

This decision is not in line with the previous court rulings including courts in the Districts of Columbia and Kansas, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted on Friday. Also, this latest ruling will spark a debate over the privacy, in the country, according to Computer World.

A District of Columbia judge denied from revealing the entire content of the email as this will seize a large amount of emails for which the authorities have not given any reason.

The Court in Kansas, also, did not rule in favor of a similar warrant, stating that it failed to ‘limit the universe of electronic communications and information to be turned over to the government to the specific crimes being investigated.’

However, the New York Court ruled in favor of such warrant, allowing authorities to take into account the emails and other information from a Google inc’s Gmail account, including the address book and draft mails, and also the authority to search the emails for certain specific categories of evidence.

Experts must scan emails, not Google employee

Judge Gorenstein argued that it is not possible to search the hard-disk drives of computers and other storage devices on the spot due to the complexities of electronic searches. Thus, the authorities can seize such storage.

‘We perceive no constitutionally significant difference between the searches of hard drives just discussed and searches of email accounts,’ the judge wrote. He added that in most of the cases data in an email account will be less ‘expansive’ compared to the information contained in the hard drive.

Judge Gorenstein stated that Google employees are not expert enough to know the importance of particular emails without having been given proper training in the substance of the investigation. Judge said this in response to an opinion by the District of Columbia court that gave the government the option of getting the email scanned by the host itself.

He said that an agent, who is completely absorbed in the investigation, will be able to understand the importance of a particular language in emails contrary to the employee.

10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Computer Forensics, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Virus, Copyright, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Discovery, Encryption, Evidence, Finance and Banking Law, Fraud, Google, Government, Identity Theft, Intellectual Property, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Legalese, Malware, Management, Patent Law, PC Computers, Plain Language, Presentations, Search Engines, Trial Tips and Techniques, Trojans, Video

≈ Comments Off on 10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Top 10 Legal TED Talks, by Tim Baran, Legal Productivity Blog

http://www.legalproductivity.com/op-ed/top-10-legal-ted-talks/

Have you heard of TED? It began in 1984 as a conference and now covers a wide range of topics in more than 100 languages.  Think of it as a massive brain trust that shares great ideas and information.

Each of the law-related TED talks listed in this article are worthwhile on their own: (1) four ways to fix a broken legal system; (2) eliminate legalese by using plain English; (3) how to beat a patent troll; (4) how the Internet will change government; (5) laws that choke creativity; (6) copyright law; (7) why eyewitnesses get it wrong; (8) how technology could make crime worse; (9) the Internet and anonymity online; and (10) how great leaders inspire. -CCE

New York’s New Privilege Log Rule.

13 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Litigation, Privilege Log

≈ Comments Off on New York’s New Privilege Log Rule.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Rule Limiting Privilege Log Practice to Take Effect, by Suevon Lee, New York Commercial Litigation Insider Blog

http://tinyurl.com/p8wwuhq

In an age of exploding electronic discovery that has multiplied the cost and scope of document review, litigants in New York’s Commercial Division will soon have the benefit of revised privilege log practice.

Starting September 2, new Rule 11-b, signed Tuesday by Chief Administrative Judge Gail Prudenti, will instruct parties to meet at the outset of the case and afterward to discuss the scope and parameters of privilege review. It also will strongly encourage using categorized designations for documents as opposed to itemized listings to help streamline the process.

Parties who resist the categorized approach may be subject to attorney fees upon a showing of good cause by the other side or a protective order from the judge.

Modeled after guidelines set forth in such jurisdictions as the Southern District of New York and Delaware Court of Chancery, the rule offers ‘a meaningful way for courts and parties to assess the assertion of privilege,’ said David H. Tennant, a partner at Nixon Peabody, who co-drafted the language with Jonathan Lupkin, of Rakower Lupkin. They are members of an advisory group charged with proposing changes to Commercial Division practice to offer a more efficient and cost-effective forum for litigants and their business clients. . . .

Why Defendant Former Employers Do Not Get Mirror-Image of Plaintiff’s Personal Computer.

30 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Employment Law, Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Requests for Production, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Why Defendant Former Employers Do Not Get Mirror-Image of Plaintiff’s Personal Computer.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Proportionality Prevents Mirror Imaging of Family Computers, by Joshua Gilliland, Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/osvw3ws

The Defendants in employment litigation sought the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers three years after she had been terminated. The crux of the eDiscovery centered on the former employee forwarding emails from her supervisors email to her personal account, which the Defendants claimed were lost by the Plaintiff. The Court denied the motion to compel. Downs v. Va. Health Sys., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74415, 6-11 (W.D. Va. June 2, 2014).

Judge James G. Welsh did a very nice job of summarizing ESI relevant to a case,proportionality, and the rules for conducting forensic analysis on an opposing party’s hard drive. The Court held the following:

(1) Nothing in the record suggests any willful failure, fault or bad faith by the plaintiff on her discovery obligations that would justify the requested computer forensics examination;

(2) The “mirror-imaging” of the plaintiff’s family computers three years after her termination raises significant issues of confidentiality and privacy;

(3) There was no duty on the part of the plaintiff to preserve her family computers as evidence;

(4) Principles of proportionality direct that the requested discovery is not sufficiently important to warrant the potential burden or expense in this case; and

(5) On the current record that the defendants have failed to justify a broad, and frankly drastic, forensic computer examination of the plaintiff’s two family computers.

Downs, at *9-10, referencing McCurdy Group v. Am. Biomedical Group, Inc., 9 Fed. Appx. 822, 831 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Basile Baumann Prost Cole & Assocs., Inc. v. BBP & Assocs. LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51264, *8 (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2013). . . .

 

Bye, Bye Privilege! What Happens When You Take No Reasonable Steps To Prevent Disclosure.

18 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Bye, Bye Privilege! What Happens When You Take No Reasonable Steps To Prevent Disclosure.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Think Fast—But Not Too Fast: Privilege Waived for Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Disclosure, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/khbymml

First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase N.A., No. 5:12-CV-289-KSF-REW, 2013 WL 7800409 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 10, 2013)

In this case, the court found that privilege was waived where First Technology Capital, Inc. (‘FTC’*), through counsel, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials.  The court’s determination that counsel’s efforts were unreasonable was based, in part, on the speed of the alleged page-by-page review (each document received, on average, only 9.84 seconds of review) and FTC’s failure to produce a privilege log, among other things. . . .

How To Draft Interrogatories.

17 Tuesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Insurance Defense, Interrogatories, Litigation, Motor Vehicle, Negligence, Personal Injury, Product Liability

≈ Comments Off on How To Draft Interrogatories.

Tags

, , ,

Drafting Interrogatories, by Megan E. Boyd, Lady (Legal) Writer

http://tinyurl.com/lx5y8ql

There are five types of discovery. Each has its own strength and weakness. Knowing when, and how, to use each effectively narrows the issues of the case and may even provide sufficient evidence for a successful summary judgment motion. This post discusses one of the most common and useful forms of discovery – interrogatories. -CCE

Interrogatories (a fancy name for a list of questions) are sent as part of the discovery process in litigation and allow parties to gain information relevant to the litigation. Many attorneys send interrogatories before they engage in other types of discovery, such as depositions, because interrogatory responses often help an attorney narrow down the types of questions the attorney will ask during a deposition. . . .

IRS Says It Did Not Back Up Email, But Relied on Employees To Archive Email On Personal Computers.

17 Tuesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Depositions, E-Discovery, Emails, Government, Internal Revenue Service, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Microsoft Office, Outlook, PC Computers, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on IRS Says It Did Not Back Up Email, But Relied on Employees To Archive Email On Personal Computers.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

GOP: IRS Lost More Emails In Tea Party Affair, by Rachel Bade with contributions by Josh Gerstein and Brian Faler, POLITICOPro

http://tinyurl.com/k9ycgz6

This did not catch my eye because of the politics or that the involved party is the IRS. I was simply in awe that anyone in this day and age of litigation holds and e-discovery could – with a straight face – claim to have irretrievably lost so much computer data.  -CCE

Republicans on Tuesday charged that the IRS has lost emails of a half dozen of its employees involved in the tea party targeting controversy, including a top aide to the now-fired acting IRS commissioner.

In addition to losing two years’ worth of emails sent and received by Lois Lerner, the central figure in the scandal, the IRS ‘cannot produce records from six other IRS employees involved in the targeting of conservative groups,’ Ways and Means Republicans said in a release.

* * *

Ways and Means does not say how the emails went missing or what time specific time periods are involved, though they say it includes the period at issue. In the case of Lerner, for example, her archived emails between 2009 and 2011 were washed away in a 2011 computer crash, the agency says.

* * *

The IRS says that at the time they did not keep records of or back up all emails. Rather, they relied on employees to archive them on their personal computers after they ran out of storage space in their Outlook inboxes. . . .

2014 Changes to Federal Subpoena Rules.

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Subpoenas

≈ Comments Off on 2014 Changes to Federal Subpoena Rules.

Tags

, , , ,

Changes to Federal Court Subpoena Rules Can Affect Business and Individuals, by Ryan K. Meyer, Fleeson Gooing Website

http://tinyurl.com/oaed43e

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the ability of federal court litigants to obtain relevant information from individuals or entities that are not parties to the litigation. This generally involves the issuance of a subpoena directing the recipient to appear to testify and/or to produce documents. A non-party may be quite surprised to receive a subpoena in a case with which it has no involvement which is being conducted in another state, but the subpoena cannot be ignored. Likewise, when involved in federal court litigation, it is important for a litigant to know what information it can obtain from third parties, and how this must be done.

This article will provide some basic information regarding recent changes that have been made to Rule 45. . . .

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

08 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by 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

, , ,

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.

Preparing for Expert Witness Depositions.

01 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Depositions, Discovery, Expert Witness, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Preparing for Expert Witness Depositions.

Tags

, , , , ,

Preparing for Expert Depositions by Looking Ahead to the Cross-Examination at Trial, by Evan Schaeffer, The Trial Practice Tips Weblog

http://tinyurl.com/kl6857f

Your preparation for depositions will generally be much easier if you think about the ways the testimony will be used at trial. This tip applies to most pretrial discovery: it’s almost never an end in itself, but something that will be used later in front of a jury. It’s no accident that the ins-and-outs of pretrial discovery often make more sense after a lawyer has witnessed some actual trials. When trials are scarce, even reading trial transcripts helps.

The looking-ahead-to-trial tip can be especially useful for deposing your opponent’s experts. If you often rely on outlines prepared by other lawyers, this method will also help you understand why it’s important to ask the questions lawyers typically ask when deposing experts. . . .

Lowering the Bar Calls for Deposition Transcripts.

28 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in Depositions, Discovery, Litigation

≈ Comments Off on Lowering the Bar Calls for Deposition Transcripts.

Tags

, , ,

Call for Transcripts, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/05/call-for-transcripts.html

I doubt your clients would approve of sharing a deposition transcript from their case with Kevin, regardless of how hilarious it might be. Don’t worry. Kevin already has quite a collection. -CCE

Last month the New York Times did a fantastic video reenactment of some truly ridiculous deposition testimony. See ‘What Is a Photocopier? (Deposition, Dramatized),’ Lowering the Bar (Apr. 28, 2014) (direct link here). They are looking for more of that kind of thing, which I think is great news, and they asked me for help, which I also think is great. The posts linked below are the ones I recommended as mentioning possible candidates for reenactment, although I unfortunately don’t actually have all of the transcripts. . . .

Deposition Objections – What’s Proper and What’s Not.

24 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Depositions, Discovery, Objections

≈ Comments Off on Deposition Objections – What’s Proper and What’s Not.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Proper Deposition Objections, by Susan Minsberg, Lawyerist Blog

http://lawyerist.com/16801/proper-deposition-objections/

Whether you are defending (or taking) your first or your hundredth deposition, you must be ready to handle objections. That means knowing which objections are proper and which are not. Once you know, you can keep the deposition proceeding smoothly — and avoid embarrassing yourself. . . .

When Discovery Becomes Less About The Merits of the Case And More About Obstruction.

24 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Admissibility, Authentication, Depositions, Discovery, Evidence, Federal Rules of Discovery, Federal Rules of Evidence, Interrogatories, Relevance, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, Sanctions, Subpoena Duces Tecum, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on When Discovery Becomes Less About The Merits of the Case And More About Obstruction.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Boilerplate Objections And “Good Faith” Requirements Are Ruining Civil Discovery, by Max Kennerly, Esq., Litigation and Trial Blog

http://tinyurl.com/m7wk9mz

Please make sure to catch the reference and link to: Matthew Jarvey, “Boilerplate Discovery Objections,” 61 Drake L. Rev. 913 (2013).  -CCE

‘If there is a hell to which disputatious, uncivil, vituperative lawyers go, let it be one in which the damned are eternally locked in discovery disputes with other lawyers of equally repugnant attributes.’ Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 364 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Krueger v. Pelican Prod. Corp., No. CIV-87-2385-A (W.D. Okla. Feb. 24, 1989). . . .