Category Archives: Requests for Production

Choosing The Best E-Discovery Document Review Platform For Your Project.

11 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Discovery, Document Coding, Document Review, E-Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Choosing The Best E-Discovery Document Review Platform For Your Project.

Tags

, , , ,

How To Choose The Best Document Review Platform, Part 1, by Jeff Bennion, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ol6wxf4

When you are planning a document review project, the selection of your document review platform is critical. In a nutshell, document review is the process of organizing and categorizing large amounts of data to find the small percentage of documents that will end up as exhibits. The data is usually stored on an offsite server and is accessed through an online review platform. Although the coding of documents is usually pretty standard across platforms (a list of documents, a document viewer window, and a panel for your tags), the features that each platform has to help you organize your key docs for depositions, hearings, and trial are not the same. . . .

Shocking! A Court Frustrated by Parties’ E-Discovery Tactics.

24 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Breach, Contract Law, Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation, Motion to Compel, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Shocking! A Court Frustrated by Parties’ E-Discovery Tactics.

Tags

, , , , , ,

E=Frustrated Court Crafts ‘New and Simpler Approach to Discovery,’ Identifies Search Terms to be Utilized by Plaintiff, posted in Case Summaries by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/kerbox6

Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S, 2014 WL 6908867 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014)

In this breach of contract case, the court granted in part Defendant’s motion to compel and, in light of Plaintiff’s piecemeal production (which the court had earlier cautioned against) and other discovery failures, fashioned a ‘new and simpler approach’ to discovery, including the identification of 13 search terms/phrases to be utilized when searching ‘ALL [of Plaintiff’s] corporate documents, files, communications, and recordings. . .’ The court also ordered the plaintiff and all counsel of record to file a sworn statement confirming its ‘good-faith effort to identify sources of documents; that a complete search of those sources for each of the [identified] phrases occurred; and that the search results [were] furnished to [Defendant].’

Discovery in this case was contentious and resulted in at least one prior motion to compel, which the court granted in favor of the defendant. At that time, the court warned the plaintiff ‘not to engage in piecemeal production of materials it has located that are responsive to Optimum Energy’s unobjectionable requests.’ Plaintiff subsequently produced documents on nine separate occasions.

Following the prior motion to compel, Defendant also learned, for the first time, of a ‘five-step development process,’ that it believed was highly relevant to its claims, and which caused it to believe that the plaintiff was withholding documents from production. Accordingly, Defendant filed a second motion to compel and sought sanctions for Plaintiff’s discovery behavior, including its delayed production of relevant information.

Taking up the motion, the court expressed its frustration with ‘the continual and growing animosity between the parties, an animosity that has slowed the progress of the case and that has required repeated judicial intervention.’ The court also noted that despite the bickering between parties, neither had ever filed a motion for a protective order ‘[n]or ha[d] any party foregone passive-aggressive snarking and filed a formal motion under Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to complain about material misrepresentations in motion papers.’ ‘Instead,’ the court continued, ‘the parties would prefer that the Court forget what the actual claims are in this case and start obsessing over details . . . .’

“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. . . .

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.

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. . . .

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. . . .

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. . . .

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. . . .

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.

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). . . .

In Discovery, Ask A Silly Question, You’ll Get A Silly Answer.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery

≈ Comments Off on In Discovery, Ask A Silly Question, You’ll Get A Silly Answer.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Lessons From Drafting Overly Broad Requests, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., bowtielaw blog

http://tinyurl.com/pzykr25

Drafting discovery is an art. While painting in oils or pastels is certainly more colorful than drafting requests in Times New Roman or Ariel, both require thought. And like any masterpiece, drafting a request for production can have its challenges.

A Requesting Party demanded an opposing party produce ‘[a]ll email and text messages sent or received on Mayo email and text messaging accounts.’

The Magistrate Judge found the request to be overly broad. . . .

Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production.

19 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, Authentication, Bates Numbers, Computer Forensics, Databases, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Federal Judges, Federal Rules of Discovery, Federal Rules of Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Judges, Legal Forms, Legal Technology, Native Format

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A Guide to Forms of Production, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/a-guide-to-forms-of-production/

Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production! Although Mr. Ball says there is much he wants to re-organize and rewrite, I can’t wait to dive in.  You will find the hyperlink to the Guide when you go to the web site. Thank you, Craig Ball! -CCE

Semiannually, I compile a primer on some key aspect of electronic discovery.  In the past, I’ve written on computer forensics, backup systems, metadata and databases. For 2014, I’ve completed the first draft of the Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production, intended to serve as a primer on making sensible and cost-effective specifications for production of electronically stored information.  It’s the culmination and re-purposing of much that I’ve written on forms heretofore, along with new material extolling the advantages of native and near-native forms.

Reviewing the latest draft, there is much I want to add and re-organize; accordingly, it will be a work-in-progress for months to come.  Consider it a “public comment” version.  The linked document includes exemplar verbiage for requests and model protocols for your adaption and adoption.  I plan to add more forms and examples. . . .

Don’t Offer An E-Database If You Can’t Afford It.

14 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Criminal Law, Databases, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Metadata, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Don’t Offer An E-Database If You Can’t Afford It.

Tags

, , , ,

Despite Alleged Budget Constraints, Government Ordered to Continue to Pay for Database to Avoid Prejudice to Criminal Defendants, Electronic Discovery Law, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/led86em

In this criminal case, the Government was ordered to continue to maintain a Relativity Database (the ‘Database’) utilized by the parties to review documents produced by the Government and to continue to provide Defendants with the access and support that the parties had previously negotiated, despite the depletion of funding for the Database which was accelerated by the Government’s voluntary actions. . . .

Tech Tips for Document Review, Production, and Trial.

15 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, Exhibits, Legal Technology, Requests for Production, Subpoena Duces Tecum, Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

5 Tech Tips for Document Review, Production and Use at Trial, by Michael Kelleher, Cogent Legal Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kv3jy3f

Mr. Kelleher not only shares the technology tips from his recent webinar, but is kind enough to offer his e-mail address and telephone number should you have any questions. Nice guy! -CCE

On Wednesday, April 9, I gave a webinar on technology tips for document review, production and use at trial for the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the California State Bar. We’re going to be posting a few of the tips on the blog if you missed the webinar. You can also download a PDF of the slide deck with all 25 tech tips here. I hope that these tips save you some time. Email me (michael.kelleher@cogentlegal.com) or give me a call at 510-350-7616 if you have questions about this or any other aspect of litigation technology. . . .

A Lesson in Attorney-Client Privilege.

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Attorney-Client Privilege, Confidentiality, Discovery, Legal Ethics, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on A Lesson in Attorney-Client Privilege.

Tags

, , , , ,

Judge Wettick: Attorney-Client Privilege Does Not Continue For Defunct Companies, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/03/judge-wettick-attorney-client-privilege.html

In his recent decision in the case of Red Vision Systems, Inc. et al. v. National Real Estate Information Services, L.P, et al., No. GD – 13 – 008572 (C.P. Allegh. Co. Feb. 26, 2014 Wettick, J.), Judge Wettick dealt with the novel issue of the application of the attorney-client privilege in the context of a request for the production of documents propounded upon a dissolved/non-operating company.

After a thorough review of the scope of the attorney-client privilege, Judge Wettick ultimately ruled that the privilege did not extend to corporations that were no longer in business.  Accordingly, a former in-house counsel for several defunct companies was ordered to turn over documents in discovery related to status of the companies’ assets. . . .

Does Document Review Qualify As The Practice of Law?

16 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, Overtime

≈ Comments Off on Does Document Review Qualify As The Practice of Law?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Contract Attorney Overtime Case Against Skadden, Arps/Tower Legal Has A New Twist, posted by mrposse, The Posse List Bog

http://perma.cc/BQB7-NU7W

This is a legal question that has not yet been completely resolved. As noted in the post, bar examiners have stated that document review is not the practice of law. Contract attorneys who often perform this work want to know whether it qualifies for overtime. This will be one to watch. -CCE

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

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in 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

, , , , , , , , ,

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).

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

21 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , , ,

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.

Court Questions Party’s Unexplained Lack Of Cooperation In E- Discovery Production.

13 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Intellectual Property, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Questions Party’s Unexplained Lack Of Cooperation In E- Discovery Production.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Court Declines to Compel Identification of Seed Set, Encourages Cooperation, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/leagmr6

In re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., NO. 3:12-MD-2391, 2013 WL 6405156 (N.D. Ind. Aug, 21, 2013).

Previously in this case, the court ruled that Biomet need not start again on its document production for which it utilized both keyword searching and predictive coding.  (See summary here.)  In this opinion, the court addressed the Steering Committee’s request that the discoverable documents used in Biomet’s seed set be identified and declined to compel such identification.  Despite this, the court noted Biomet’s ‘unexplained lack of cooperation’and urged Biomet to ‘re-think its refusal.’

Was It Appropriate to Produce Word Documents as PDF Files?

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by 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

, , , , , , ,

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?

Thorough Analysis of Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Doctrine.

25 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Thorough Analysis of Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Doctrine.

Tags

, , , , ,

Federal Middle District Magistrate Judge Mehalchick Addresses Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Product Doctrine in Discovery Dispute, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://tinyurl.com/kw7cdbl

The case before Judge Mehalchick, entitled Dempsey v. Bucknell University, No. 4:11-CV-1679 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 7, 2013 Mehalchick, M.J.), arose out of a breach of contract claim filed by a student against the university relative to student conduct hearings held.  At issue were certain documents withheld from discovery by the plaintiff in response to the defendant’s Rule 34 discovery requests on the grounds of the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.