• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Requests for Production

When Does a Subpoena for Documents in a Foreign or International Tribunal Require Personal Jurisdiction?

21 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, International Law, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on When Does a Subpoena for Documents in a Foreign or International Tribunal Require Personal Jurisdiction?

Tags

28 U.S.C. § 1782, Gilbert A. Samberg, International Law, Lexology Blog, Request for Production of Documents

Oh, And One More Thing . . . Issuing A Subpoena For Documents Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Also Requires Personal Jurisdiction Over The Subpoena Target, posted by Gilbert A. Samberg, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, Lexology Blog

http://bit.ly/2FbbE5e

When someone mentions a subpoena for documents, most of us think of a subpoena duces tecum under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1782 also is used to subpoena documents, but in cases involving a foreign or international tribunal. How easy is it to meet that standard?

This post explains the three threshold standards and how the Second Circuit Court handled it. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Do You Use the Cloud for Document Storage or Production? Read This First.

28 Tuesday Feb 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Clouds, Confidentiality, Discovery, Dropbox, Emails, Encryption, Evidence, Insurance Defense, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Litigation, Passwords, Privilege and Confidentiality, Requests for Production, Sanctions, Subpoena Duces Tecum

≈ Comments Off on Do You Use the Cloud for Document Storage or Production? Read This First.

Tags

ABA Journal, Attorney-Client Privilege, Cloud Storage, Confidentiality, Debra Cassens Weiss, Discovery, File Sharing, Legal Ethics, Work Product Doctrine

Upload To File-Sharing Site Was Like Leaving Legal File On A Bench, Judge Says; Privilege Is Waived, by Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal©

http://bit.ly/2mxwEcF

Many use the cloud for file storage and sharing when attachments are too big to send by email. If you use the cloud for storage, file-sharing or transfer, document management, project management, or anything similar, here is a cautionary tale.

The plaintiff insurance company sued the defendants, and sought a declaratory judgment on the defendants’ claim of loss by fire. The plaintiff’s investigator uploaded the entire claims file, including surveillance footage, to a drop-box cloud, Box, Inc. The link had no encryption or password. Access to the link alone allowed anyone to see the file.

He then sent the link by email to the plaintiff insurance company, who sent it to the insurance company’s attorneys, who inadvertently sent it the defendants’ counsel in response to a subpoena duces tecum.

The defendants’ counsel looked at it, but didn’t tell the plaintiff they had seen the privileged and confidential information. Inevitably, the defense sent the information back on a thumb drive to the plaintiff’s attorneys during discovery.

After vigorous arguments about confidentiality, work-product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, and disqualification of defense counsel, the facts and court’s reasoning make this an interesting read. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

E-Discovery and the Law of Diminishing Returns.

14 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery and the Law of Diminishing Returns.

Tags

2015 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Proceudre, E-Discovery, K&L Gates, Rule 26

Citing “Diminishing Returns,” Court Declines To Compel Additional Discovery, Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S, 2016 WL 7208753 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016), Electric Discovery Law, K&L Gates

http://bit.ly/2jbEnfn

When it comes to e-discovery, how much is too much? When do you or opposing counsel reach the point where the costs outweigh the value? The 2015 amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did much to provide more guidance on e-discovery. Rule 26 is the focus of this post.

E-discovery normally means that you and your client have spent hours and lots of money on the case. If you cannot decide when enough is enough and neither the client nor the attorney are willing to stop the bleeding, the court may do it for you. Actually, the court has a duty to stop e-discovery when it becomes redundant and the cost outweighs the value of the return. -CCE

­

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

For E-Discovery Requests, The Court Says It’s Not Enough To Say Nothing Was Found.

11 Tuesday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Emails, Federal Rules of Discovery, Preservation, Requests for Production, Subpoena Duces Tecum

≈ Comments Off on For E-Discovery Requests, The Court Says It’s Not Enough To Say Nothing Was Found.

Tags

Bow Tie Law Blog, E-Discovery, Josh Gilliland, Requests for Production

Don’t Just Say, “No Emails Found,” by Josh Gilliland, Bow Tie Law Blog

http://bowtielaw.com/2016/10/04/dont-just-say-no-emails-found/

The plaintiff asked the defendant to produce emails relevant to an event on a specific date. The defendant said there were no such emails, and had nothing to produce. The judge agreed that the defendant could not produce what did not exist, but ordered the defendant to show how it determined no emails existed. Simply saying that no emails existed was not a sufficient answer.

 If you are the defendant, what else should you say to satisfy the court? -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Written Discovery Basics.

20 Saturday Aug 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, E-Discovery, Interrogatories, Legal Writing, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Definitions and Instructions, Discovery, Legal Writing, Motion to Compel, Objections

I admit it. I love writing and answering discovery. Too often, I have seen boilerplate discovery asking for something that is not relevant. What a waste. Do not write discovery if you know nothing about the case. Blindly sending boilerplate discovery at best makes you look busy. At worst, it makes you look sloppy.

Discovery rules change. Read and re-read the court rules, local court rules, and the applicable discovery code. At the outset of the case, send your client and the opposing party a litigation hold letter. It does not matter whether either is an individual or a big corporation. Everyone uses email and sends texts on their cell phones.

Before you start writing discovery, you have to be familiar with the facts and law of your client’s case. If you aren’t, read the pleadings. Understand why the plaintiff sued the defendant(s) and what answer the defendant gave to those allegations, including all affirmative defenses. If it helps, make a chart or an outline.

There is a basic way to determine what discovery you should request. First, make a list of what you need to prove your case. We’ll call this List #1. Second, ask yourself whether you have everything needed to prove (or defend) everything on List #1? You won’t. So, third, make a list of what you need – List #2. Your client will provide some of the evidence you need, and you will use discovery to continue your search. Revise List #2 to identify what you need but do not have.

With List #2 as your guide, use discovery to get whatever else you need to prove your case. Each type of discovery is unique. Play to their strengths, which is a post all by itself. Craft your discovery to snag that evidence and identify anyone who is a potential witness and/or document custodian.

A quick word about Definitions and Instructions. Please do not regurgitate the discovery rules. I admit that I do not follow my own advice. I like to remind opposing counsel (and the opposing party) that there is a continuing obligation to supplement discovery. In the hopes that it will save time and aggravation, I also like to add the specific language from the discovery code about when you can object and why.

Define only what is necessary. If there is room for confusion, clarify what is what and who is whom. If the case revolves around specific documents, such as a contract or an event, define it with a simple designation. Your goal is instant recognition of whatever it is. If there are more than one contract or event, make your definitions basic and easy to recognize.

As soon as you receive the responses to your discovery, mark every incomplete answer or objection. Ask for supplementation where needed, and follow up. If an objection is ridiculous or simply obstructive, challenge it while at the same time building exhibits to support a motion to compel (read the rules!). Do not wait until the discovery deadline is looming to stay on top of this.

This one should be a no-brainer, but I still see it every so often. A party objects to the most basic discovery question and refuses to answer. The other side asks a standard, basic interrogatory, and you object. Really? You cannot enforce it. You know it; I know it; and the other side knows it.

Say goodbye to your boilerplate forms. If you use a form, proofread. Know your case. Adapt your discovery plan as the case progresses. These are not all the basics, but it will hopefully give you a running start. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Using Discovery to Search for Hidden Assets.

20 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Requests for Production, Subpoena Duces Tecum

≈ Comments Off on Using Discovery to Search for Hidden Assets.

Tags

Asset Search Blog, Discovery, Fred L. Abrams, Hidden Assets, Request for Production of Documents

Using A Production Request In Your Asset Search, by Fred L. Abrams, Asset Search Blog (Fred L. Abrams©2016)

http://bit.ly/20OGtRn

If you are a divorcing spouse, judgment creditor or other litigant, how do you conclusively establish whether or not assets have been hidden from you? You can sometimes reasonably determine this by using legal tools to search for assets. In a pending litigation, these tools might include: depositions; subpoenas; interrogatories; production requests; etc.

Below is part of a production request in the hypothetical case of ‘JOHN DOE.’ The production request seeks access to JOHN DOE’s passport; credit cards; phone records; etc. By analyzing this kind of material one might possibly detect secret offshore bank accounts or other hidden assets. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Don’t Challenge Under Rule 34 If You Cannot Explain Why.

25 Thursday Feb 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, Federal Rules of Discovery, Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on Don’t Challenge Under Rule 34 If You Cannot Explain Why.

Tags

Bates Numbering, Bow Tie Law Blog, E-Discovery, Joshua Gilliland, Request for Production, Rule 34

Attack the Form of Production, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/be-specific-if-you-are-going-to-attack-the-form-of-production/

Oh, Rule 34. You are the code section that keeps giving.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i), a party ’must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.’

A Plaintiff brought a motion to compel the opposing party to organize and label their production to correspond to the categories in the Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Things did not go well for the Plaintiff’s motion. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Litgation Hold – Too Little Too Late.

25 Thursday Feb 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Cell Phones, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Emails, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Municipal Law, Open Records Act, Preservation, Requests for Production, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Litgation Hold – Too Little Too Late.

Tags

Doug Law, E-Discovery, eDiscovery daily Blog, Emails, Litigation Hold, Police, Sanctions, Text Messages

Our Nation’s Largest City is Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Law, eDiscovery daily Blog

http://bit.ly/1Rqmnc0

In Stinson v. City of New York, 10 Civ. 4228 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2016), New York District Judge Robert W. Sweet granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence against the defendants for failure to issue a litigation hold, opting for a permissive inference rather than a mandatory adverse inference sanction against the defendants .

Case Background

In this civil rights class action against the City of New York, it was determined that the City did not issue any litigation hold until August 8, 2013, more than three years after the filing of the Complaint in this case and the litigation hold was not effectively communicated, and none of the officers who were named in the City’s initial disclosures acknowledged receiving it. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Wise Advice on Drafting Definitions and Instructions in Discovery.

17 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Interrogatories, Relevance, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Wise Advice on Drafting Definitions and Instructions in Discovery.

Tags

Definitions and Objections, Discovery, Prof. Denis Stearns, Sanctions, Seattle University School of Law

Drafting & Using Effective Definitions for Interrogatories (And Other Ways To Make It Much Less Defensible To Object), by Prof. Denis Stearns, Seattle University School of Law, Of Counsel, Marler Clark, LLP, PS

https://www.regonline.com/custImages/260000/269600/CLEPresentation102111DraftingDefinitions-Stearns.pdf

Probably one of the best and most logical explanations on how and when to include Instructions or Definitions in your discovery requests and how to deal with boilerplate objections. Good advice and tips for even the most experienced litigator. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Chief Justice Urges Judges To Impose More Management Over Their Cases.

01 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Diligence, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal Judges, Interrogatories, Judges, Legal Ethics, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, Rules of Professional Responsibility

≈ Comments Off on Chief Justice Urges Judges To Impose More Management Over Their Cases.

Tags

Case Management, Chief Justice Roberts, Discovery Abuse, Judges, Procedural Posturing

Chief Justice Wants Less Gamesmanship By Lawyers, by Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog

http://bit.ly/1JkhNf7

Justice Roberts’ words apply to state courts as well. Ignoring client’s cases, unnecessary and burdensome discovery disputes, and repeated continuances do nothing to endear the legal profession to their clients or the public. -CCE

Speaking in soft but plain words, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., used his year-end report on Thursday night to urge lawyers who practice in federal courts to take steps to help improve the efficiency, and reduce the cost, of trying cases.  Roberts also added some strong encouragement for judges who preside over federal civil trials to take greater control of the management of cases, rather than leaving the process to the tactics of the competing lawyers. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Defendant Ordered by Court to Produce Gap-Period Emails on Backup Tapes.

04 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Emails, Evidence, Federal Rules of Discovery, Forensic Evidence, Gap-Period Emails, Legal Technology, Motion to Compel, Relevance, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Defendant Ordered by Court to Produce Gap-Period Emails on Backup Tapes.

Tags

Backup Tapes, Doug Austin, E-Discovery, eDiscoveryDaily Blog, Gap-Period Emails, Zubulake

Defendant Compelled to Restore and Produce Emails from Backup Tapes: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Austin, eDiscoveryDaily Blog

In United States ex rel Guardiola v. Renown Health, No. 3:12-cv-00295-LRH-VPC, (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2015), Nevada Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke concluded that emails contained on backup tapes held by the defendants was not reasonably inaccessible due to undue cost and, even if the emails were reasonably inaccessible due to undue burden or undue cost, ‘good cause supports their discoverability.’ . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

2,941 Page Privilege Log? Better Make It Good.

10 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Privilege and Confidentiality, Privilege Log, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on 2,941 Page Privilege Log? Better Make It Good.

Tags

Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Doug Austin, eDiscoveryDaily Blog, Motion to Compel, Privilege Logs

If You’re Going to Submit a 2,941 Page Privilege Log, You’d Better Be Able to Demonstrate Privilege: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Austin, eDiscoverydaily Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nwmrx27

The last post by Mr. Gilliland is an excellent illustration of the rule for privilege logs. This example? Well, you be the judge. -CCE

In United States v. Louisiana, 11-470-JWD-RLB. (M.D. La. July 31, 2015), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., after reviewing 40 documents provided by the defendant for in-camera review, granted the plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel a Proper Privilege Log, after denying the original motion because the plaintiff only provided 13 examples of ‘insufficient descriptions’ within the privilege log’s entries. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Privilege Logs.

10 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Privilege and Confidentiality, Privilege Log, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Privilege Logs.

Tags

Attorney-Client Privilege, Bow Tie Law Blog, Confidentiality, Discovery, Joshua Gilliland, Privilege Logs

A Case Study on Privilege Logs, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/a-case-study-on-privilege-logs/

In this post, Mr. Gilliland suggests an Excel format and headings for a privilege log with a reminder to cover the privilege log rule requirements. Here is another basic example in Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DKgo192j0sQfbj5H51gFQZNFbcrQJOxuBaUU3ZzZGBU/preview

-CCE

Privilege logs require more than merely saying a prospectively privileged document is an ‘attorney-client communication.’ This requires litigants to conduct privilege review with far more analysis than simply tagging discovery ‘Attorney Client Privilege’ or ‘Work Product Conduct.’ The case of United States v. State & La. Dep’t of Health & Hospitals highlights the importance of effective discovery review in creating privilege logs. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Judge Uses The “Mommy Voice.”

25 Monday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Depositions, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Relevance, Requests for Production, Subpoena Duces Tecum

≈ Comments Off on Judge Uses The “Mommy Voice.”

Tags

Above the Law, Benchslap, David Lat, Depositions, Discovery, Discovery Abuse, Judge Richard Leon

Benchslap Of The Day: Just. Produce. The Documents!, by David Lat, Above The Law Blog

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/02/benchslap-of-the-day-just-produce-the-documents/

What’s the “Mommy Voice?” We have all been there, and may have used it ourselves.  It’s when your parent – usually your mother — calls you using your first, middle, and last names in a no-nonsense voice. Usually, whatever happens next, it isn’t pretty. -CCE

Yes, benchslaps are great fun to read about, especially if you enjoy a little schadenfreude. But benchslaps are not fun to receive — and they’re not always justified.

Because of the prestige of judicial office, judges generally get the benefit of the doubt when dishing out benchslaps. But sometimes judges go too far. For example, some observers felt that Judge Richard Posner crossed the line when interrogating a Jones Day partner during a recent Seventh Circuit argument.

This brings us to today’s benchslap — directed at a lawyer for the federal government, no less. It’s harsh, but is it warranted? . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Top Ten Checklist For Reviewing Discovery.

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Exhibits, Federal Rules of Discovery, Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Top Ten Checklist For Reviewing Discovery.

Tags

Carol Treasure, Discovery Responses, Privilege Log, The Bar Association of San Francisco, Trial Exhibits, Trial Tips & Techniques

Top Ten Things To Do With Discovery Responses, by Carol Treasure, RN, PhD, JD, Cooper & Scully, P.C., The Bar Association of San Francisco

http://www.sfbar.org/basf-bulletin/2012/dec-2012/discovery-responses.aspx

Attorneys expend tremendous effort drafting interrogatories and requests for admissions or documents. Having a checklist will assist you when reviewing the discovery responses. Below is a list of ten things you can do with discovery responses which can save you time and help with case management. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

No Perfection Standard In E-Discovery?

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on No Perfection Standard In E-Discovery?

Tags

Ball In Your Court Blog, Competency, Craig Ball, Discovery, E-Discovery, Request for Production of Documents

Is There a Right to Fail in E-Discovery?, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/is-there-a-right-to-fail-in-e-discovery/

Disagreements about scope and process in e-discovery shouldn’t split between plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interests. After all, everyone is a requesting and producing party, whether north or south of the ‘v.’ Yet, the reality is that most defense counsel see themselves as producing parties, and most plaintiffs’ counsel identify with requesting parties. That unfortunate alignment poisons our ability to set aside allegiances and be officers of the Court mutually determined to find the most effective and efficient means to discover evidence illuminating the issues.

Cooperation in e-discovery is derided as naive in an adversarial system of justice, and ‘discovery about discovery’ is vilified as a diversionary tactic, a modern take on the maxim, ‘if you can’t try the case, then try your opponent.’ Counsel for responding parties are quick to note that no party is obliged to deliver a perfect production. They’re absolutely right. Perfection is not the standard. But, is a producing party entitled to fail before a requesting party may inquire into the scope and process of e-discovery? Must we wait until the autopsy to question the care plan? . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Slip-and-Fall Evidence Spoilation A Slippery Slope?

06 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation, Personal Injury, Requests for Production, Slip and Fall

≈ Comments Off on Slip-and-Fall Evidence Spoilation A Slippery Slope?

Tags

Ball In Your Court Blog, Craig Ball, Doug Austin, eDiscoveryDaily Blog, Personal Injury, Slip and Fall, Sua Sponte

Slippery Slope: Harrell v. Pathmark, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/2318/

One e-discovery blog I never fail to read is Doug Austin’s eDiscoveryDaily. It’s hard to come up with a post every day; yet, Doug makes it look easy. Each post is a quick read with little editorializing; and, Doug faithfully includes a link to the opinion. That last may seem a small thing; but, some bloggers don’t do it (or only share the full text of the decision with paying customers). There’s no substitute for reading the case.

Today, Doug posted on Harrell v. Pathmark, (USDC EDPA, February 26, 2015), where the Court dismisses the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall injury claim on summary judgment. I don’t think the Court got it wrong on the merits; but, in weighing in, sua sponte, on the e-spoliation issue, I’m reminded of the maxim, ‘hard cases make bad law.’ . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Can You Do When The Divorcing Spouse Hides Marital Assets In A Trust?

24 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Family Law, Hidden Assets, Interrogatories, Requests for Production, Trusts

≈ Comments Off on What Can You Do When The Divorcing Spouse Hides Marital Assets In A Trust?

Tags

Asset Search Blog, Discovery, Divorce, Fred Abrams, Interrogatories, Marital Assets, Requests for Production, Trusts

Divorce & Hidden Money: Collecting Evidence About Assets Concealed By A Trust, by Fred Abrams, Asset Search Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pnb78wc

Mroy post ‘Four Asset Concealment Tools‘ says that assets can be hidden by fraudulently transferring them to a trust. This 15th post in the ’Divorce & Hidden Money’ series concentrates on the evidence a divorcing spouse might try to collect if marital assets are concealed by a trust.

A spouse can use the pretrial discovery phase of a divorce to gather evidence about any marital assets concealed by a trust. Based on this evidence, the divorcing spouse may be able to credibly argue that assets at the trust are marital property subject to distribution by the Court. A divorcing spouse might also claim the trust was void if the trust was ‘self-settled‘ (i.e. the grantor and beneficiary were found to be one and the same). Under certain circumstances a divorcing spouse can additionally assert the trust veil should be pierced because the trust wrongly concealed assets &/or facilitated fraudulent transfers. See Babitt v. Vebeliunas (In re Vebeliunas), 332 F.3d 85, 91 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussing New York cases where right to pierce trust veil was preserved). . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Another Way To Number Discovery Documents With Microsoft Word.

21 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bates Numbering, Discovery, Document Control, Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Another Way To Number Discovery Documents With Microsoft Word.

Tags

Auto-Numbering, Bates Numbering, Discovery, Document Control, Interrogatories, Matt Albrecht, Microsoft Word, Remedial Action Law Blog, Request for Production of Documents, Requests for Admission

Making Numbering Interrogatories and Requests for Production/Admission Easy (with Video), by Matt Albrecht, Remedial Action Law Blog (with hat tip to Sam Glover, Lawyerist Blog, and Patricia Lyons)

http://tinyurl.com/pg8aseh

Not surprisingly, Pat Lyons, RP, from Rhode Island, one of the sharpest paralegals I’ve ever met, knows a neat trick. Thanks, Pat! -CCE

Numbering requests for production and requests for admission is something that legal secretaries and attorneys loathe. It’s something that systems administrators loathe to see take so long to do. It’s an error-prone process that occasionally results in mis-numbering and confusion, and when mistakes occur, it just looks bad.

Microsoft Word has auto-numbering features that can make things like this easier. One way that we use auto-numbering is for legal-style numbered paragraphs. Properly applied to Styles in Word, numbered paragraphs are easy, automatic, and they update themselves. We use multilevel lists to accomplish numbered paragraphs, and it works wonderfully. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Defendants Recover E-Discovery Costs And How They Did It.

04 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Legal Writing, Motions, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Defendants Recover E-Discovery Costs And How They Did It.

Tags

Discovery Costs, E-Discovery, ESI, K&L Gates

Court Finds Defendants Are Entitled to Recover $55,649.98 In e-Discovery Costs, by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/pdqnz3a

Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea, No. 11-cv-03417-CMA-MJW, 2015 WL 638198 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2015)

Plaintiffs brought a ‘Motion to Review Clerk’s Taxing of Costs Under F.R.C.P. 54(D)(1).’ Specifically, Plaintiffs sought review of the clerk’s determination “concerning the costs taxed amount of $55,649.98, which accounts for Defendants contracting with a private consulting company, Cyopsis, to retrieve and convert ESI into a retrievable format to produce information requested by Plaintiffs.” The court held that ‘[b]ecause Defendants’ costs related to the electronically stored information (‘ESI’) are expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), and Plaintiffs were aware that Defendants would have to retain an outside consultant to retrieve and convert the ESI into a retrievable format, Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied.’ . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery? Is There Such A Thing?

08 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Concept Search Tools, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Emails, Federal Rules of Discovery, Legal Technology, Microsoft Office, Native Format, Outlook, Preservation, Requests for Production, Rule 34

≈ Comments Off on Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery? Is There Such A Thing?

Tags

Ball In Your Court Blog, Computer Forensics, Craig Ball, Discovery, E-Discovery, E-Mail, Evidence, Native Format, PST Files

Do-It-Yourself Digital Discovery, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ol2urvf

In case you have not noticed, Craig Ball is re-posting older articles, as he explains below. Truly folks, when it comes to e-discovery, when Craig Ball speaks, I listen. Maybe you should too. 

I have posted many of his revisited posts. To find them all, visit his blog, Ball In Your Court at https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/. -CCE

This is the thirteenth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations.  As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Do-It-Yourself Digital Discovery [Originally published in Law Technology News, May 2006]

Recently, a West Texas firm received a dozen Microsoft Outlook PST files from a client. Like the dog that caught the car, they weren’t sure what to do next.  Even out on the prairie, they’d heard of online hosting and e-mail analytics, but worried about the cost. They wondered: Did they really need an e-discovery vendor? Couldn’t they just do it themselves?

As a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. ‘Guard the chain of custody,’ I want to warn. ’Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!’ But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, ‘Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.’

Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Sometimes, that means doing it yourself.

As a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. ‘Guard the chain of custody,’ I want to warn. ‘Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!’ But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, ‘Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.’

Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Sometimes, that means doing it yourself.

The West Texas lawyers sought a way to access and search the Outlook e-mail and attachments in the PSTs. It had to be quick and easy. It had to protect the integrity of the evidence. And it had to be cheap. They wanted what many lawyers will come to see they need: the tools and techniques to stay in touch with the evidence in smaller cases without working through vendors and experts.

What’s a PST?

Microsoft Outlook is the most popular business e-mail and calendaring client, but don’t confuse Outlook with Outlook Express, a simpler application bundled with Windows. Outlook Express stores messages in plain text, by folder name, in files with the extension .DBX. Outlook stores local message data, attachments, folder structure and other information in an encrypted, often-massive database file with the extension .PST. Because the PST file structure is complex, proprietary and poorly documented, some programs have trouble interpreting PSTs.

What About Outlook?

Couldn’t they just load the files in Outlook and search? Many do just that, but there are compelling reasons why Outlook is the wrong choice for an electronic discovery search and review tool, foremost among them being that it doesn’t protect the integrity of the evidence. Outlook changes PST files. Further, Outlook searches are slow, don’t include attachments (but see my concluding comments below) and can’t be run across multiple mail accounts. . . . .

.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Craig Ball on E-Discovery, Litigation Holds, and Evidence Preservation.

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Relevance, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball on E-Discovery, Litigation Holds, and Evidence Preservation.

Tags

Ball in Your Court, Craig Ball, Discovery, E-Disocvery, E-Mail, ESI, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Request for Production of Documents

The Path to E-Mail Production II, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

http://tinyurl.com/q4uozfh

This is the seventh in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

The Path to Production: Retention Policies That Work

(Part II of IV)

[Originally published in Law Technology News, November 2005]

We continue down the path to production of electronic mail. Yesterday, I reminded you to look beyond the e-mail server to the many other places e-mail hides. Now, having identified the evidence, we’re obliged to protect it from deletion, alteration and corruption.

Preservation
Anticipation of a claim is all that’s required to trigger a duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence, including fragile, ever-changing electronic data. Preservation allows backtracking on the path to production, but fail to preserve evidence and you’ve burned your bridges.

Complicating our preservation effort is the autonomy afforded e-mail users. They create quirky folder structures, commingle personal and business communications and — most dangerous of all — control deletion and retention of messages.

Best practices dictate that we instruct e-mail custodians to retain potentially relevant messages and that we regularly convey to them sufficient information to assess relevance in a consistent manner. In real life, hold directives alone are insufficient. Users find it irresistibly easy to delete data, so anticipate human frailty and act to protect evidence from spoliation at the hands of those inclined to destroy it. Don’t leave the fox guarding the henhouse. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

E-Discovery Is Scary!

17 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Native Format, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery Is Scary!

Tags

Discovery, E-Discovery, ESI, Facebook, Molly DiBianca, Native Format, Social media, The Delaware Employment Law Blog, Wellin v. Wellin

How NOT to Produce Facebook Evidence, by Molly DiBianca, The Delaware Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/l8tvv2c

Electronic discovery, the collection and production of electronic documents in litigation, is a scary thing to many lawyers. Some are so scared by it, in fact, that they just deny that it exists and continue to produce only hard-copy documents. Of course, that is a terrible idea. And not at all in compliance with the rules of procedure. But, alas, it is what it is.

There are times that a lawyer will want to produce electronic records, such as text messages, emails, and, heaven forbid, social-media content, but simply not know how to do it. I had an opposing counsel call me once and say that he was willing to produce his client’s relevant Facebook posts if I would show him how to do it. Ummmm, no.

My point, though, is that lawyers are ethically bound to understand and comply with the applicable e-discovery rules but, as a matter of practical reality, that does not mean that they comply.  Which is why e-discovery continues to be a predominant subject for discussion in the legal profession.

A recent case from South Carolina gives a pretty good example of how not to produce electronically stored information (ESI). In Wellin v. Wellin, the defendants moved to compel the production of certain ESI, including emails, text messages, and Facebook posts in ‘native format.’ (Native format means, in the most basic sense, that if it was originally in electronic form, you must produce it in electronic form, as opposed to paper form).

The plaintiffs apparently had attempted to produce the requested items but, instead of producing the responsive material in native format, they . . . [wait for it, wait for it] . . .  .-

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Federal Magistrate On Writing Discovery and Responses – “What We Have Here Is A Failure to Communicate.”

17 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Boilerplate Forms, Discovery, Editing, Interrogatories, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Readability, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Federal Magistrate On Writing Discovery and Responses – “What We Have Here Is A Failure to Communicate.”

Tags

Discovery, Discovery Disputes, Discovery Responses, Legal Writing, Oklahoma Bar Journal, U.S. Magistrate Paul J. Cleary

Some Thoughts on Discovery and Legal Writing, by Judge Paul J. Cleary, Oklahoma Bar Journal, 82 OBJ 33 (2011)

http://tinyurl.com/mjfawqa

Since 2002, The Hon. Paul J. Cleary has served as U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  He has the joy of overseeing discovery in civil litigation. You could say that experience makes him an expert. 

It should be no surprise that he urges counsel to use good writing habits and avoid boilerplate language. -CCE

“What we have here is failure to communicate.” Cool Hand Luke (Jalem Productions 1967).

There is a famous scene at the end of the movie Blow Up2 where mimes face off in a tennis match using an imaginary ball and racquets. It reminds me of too many discovery disputes: I sit as the linesman, watching helplessly as the lawyers roil and argue between intermittent swats at imaginary objects.

The fundamental problems that underlie most discovery disputes might be pulled from the pages of a marriage counselor’s handbook: Fear of commitment and inability to communicate. Lawyers won’t commit to a definition of the legal dispute: It’s not a simple breach of contract; it’s a contract, fraud, bad faith, conspiracy, racketeering case. The ill-defined nature of the dispute drives discovery into vast, uncharted territory. By the same token, lawyers responding to discovery requests won’t commit to a clear statement of what responsive documents exist and which of those will be produced. The purpose of this article is to examine the problem of inartful/incomprehensible discovery requests and responses and to offer some observations and, perhaps,some solutions. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Is The Case About And What Are You Looking For?

17 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Hard Drives, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on What Is The Case About And What Are You Looking For?

Tags

Ball in Your Court, Computer Forensic Specialist, Craig Ball, E-Discovery, Hard Drives, Special Masters

Don’t Try This at Home, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/dont-try-this-at-home-revisited/

This is the fifth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Don’t Try This at Home

[Originally published in Law Technology News, August 2005]

The legal assistant on the phone asked, “Can you send us copies of their hard drives?”

As court-appointed Special Master, I’d imaged the contents of the defendant’s computers and served as custodian of the data for several months. The plaintiff’s lawyer had been wise to lock down the data before it disappeared, but like the dog that caught the car, he didn’t know what to do next. Now, with trial a month away, it was time to start looking at the evidence.

“Not unless the judge orders me to give them to you,” I replied. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
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 455 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: