• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Discovery

Attorney Disbarred For Mishandling Administration of Mother’s Estate.

06 Saturday Dec 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Ethics Opinions, Legal Ethics, Malpractice, Probate, Probate and Trusts, Rules of Professional Responsibility, Trusts, Wills

≈ Comments Off on Attorney Disbarred For Mishandling Administration of Mother’s Estate.

Tags

Disbarred Attorneys, Discovery, Ethical Misconduct, Frivolous Motions, Legal Profession Prof Blog, Mike Frisch, Probate, Sanctions

Brother Can You Spare A Disbarment? by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/m8bcrmw

The Washington State Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney for misconduct in connection with the administration of his mother’s estate.

The attorney was appointed as personal representative on his mother’s death in 1995. He lived with her at the time of her death and had his law office in her home.

The estate was to be equally divided between him and his three brothers.

The court affirmed findings that the attorney had engaged in frivolous motions and appeals, ignored discovery obligations and mis-valued estate assets.

In this case, the hearing officer reasonably concluded from the evidence presented at the hearing that Jones filed frivolous motions and appeals that harmed his brothers and the administration of justice. Jones filed numerous motions and appeals in the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and this court. Each motion was denied, and sanctions were awarded against Jones. Because Jones received sanctions, the hearing officer reasonably concluded that Jones was put on notice of the frivolous nature of his motions before refiling and appealing them. Like in Sanai, the hearing officer did not rely solely on a particular judicial ruling, but rather used judicial decisions as evidence that Jones filed repetitive frivolous motions that resulted in sanctions. The hearing officer’s conclusions were additionally supported by the testimony of six witnesses, resulting in over 1,500 pages of transcripts, as well as nearly 200 exhibits.

The court found seven aggravating factors including refusal to acknowledge the ethical violations

Jones argues that the record does not support refusal to acknowledge because he is not required to agree with the charges made or to confess. However, the aggravating factor of refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct was correctly applied. Jones continued to file motions, lawsuits, and appeals even after being sanctioned numerous times for the frivolous nature of such filings. By receiving sanctions, Jones was aware of his RPC violations but persisted with his conduct.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

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

08 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Discovery, E-Mails, K&L Gates, Legacy Systems, Motion to Compel, Patent Infringement

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.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Witness Preparation = Successful Depositions.

22 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Advertising, Depositions, Discovery, Law Office Management, Marketing, Objections, Video Deposition

≈ Comments Off on Witness Preparation = Successful Depositions.

Tags

Depositions, Discovery, Jim Calloway, Jim Calloway's Law Practice Tips Blog, Law Office Marketing, Oklahoma Bar Association, Robert P. Redemann

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.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Craig Ball’s E-Discovery Tips For Judges.

18 Saturday Oct 2014

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

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

Tags

Ball in Your Court, Craig Ball, Discovery, E-Discovery, ESI, Judges, Metadata, Requests for Production

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. . . .

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

New York’s New Privilege Log Rule.

13 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Litigation, Privilege Log

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

Tags

Complex Litigation, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, New York, New York Commercial Litigation Insider Blog, Privilege Log, Suevon Lee

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. . . .

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

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

30 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Bow Tie Law’s Blog, Computer Forensics, Discovery, Employment Litigation, ESI, Joshua Gilliland, Judge James G. Welsh, Proportionality

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). . . .

 

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

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

18 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, E-Discovery, Inadvertent Production, K&L Gates, Privilege and Confidentiality, Request for Production, Rule 502(B)

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. . . .

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

How To Draft Interrogatories.

17 Tuesday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Insurance Defense, Interrogatories, Litigation, Motor Vehicle, Negligence, Personal Injury, Product Liability

≈ Comments Off on How To Draft Interrogatories.

Tags

(Lady) Legal Writer, Discovery, Interrogatories, Megan E. Boyd

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. . . .

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

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

24 Saturday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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, Discovery, Litigation and Trial Blog, Matthew Jarvey, Max Kennerly, Meet and Confer, Motion to Compel, Requests for Admission

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). . . .

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

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

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

bowtielaw blog, Discovery, E-Discovery, E-Mail, ESI, Joshua Gilliland, Requests for Production, Text Messages

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. . . .

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Does Document Review Qualify As The Practice of Law?

16 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Contract Attorneys, Discovery, Document Review, Matthew Green, Overtime, Practice of Law, Skadden Arps/Tower Legal, The Posse List Bog

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

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Social Media Is Admissible Evidence, But Must Be Authenticated.

16 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Authentication, Discovery, Evidence, Relevance, Social Media

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Dave Stafford, Discovery, Evidence, Facebook, Judge David Shaheed, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, Lyn Mettler, Marion Superior Court Master Commissioner David Hooper, Relevancy, Social media, Step Ahead Social Research, The Indiana Lawyer.com

Social Media Sleuths Find Evidence, But Admissibility Requires Authentication, by Dave Stafford, The Indiana Lawyer.com

http://perma.cc/N638-D84L

What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook – forever – and attorneys conceivably run into risk if they fail to investigate pertinent posts, a judge suggested during a recent presentation about social media evidence. . . .

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

If Your Copier Has A Hard Drive, Is Its Stored Data Susceptible to E-Discovery?

09 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Confidentiality, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Metadata, Native Format, Office Procedures, Preservation, Sanctions, Technology

≈ Comments Off on If Your Copier Has A Hard Drive, Is Its Stored Data Susceptible to E-Discovery?

Tags

Adolph J. Levy, Copiers, Digital Devices, Discovery, Document Retention, E-Discovery, Fax Machines, Hard Drives, Out-Of-The-Box Lawyering Blog, Requests for Production

Be Aware: Copying Machines Can Have Hard Drives And Store Copies – That’s Potential Out-Of-The-Box Discovery, by Adolph J. Levy, Out-Of-The-Box Lawyering Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mmpkd5h

Did you know that some copying machines have hard drives and store digital copies of the copies they have made? Or that the hard drives could even contain 25,000 copies that have been made? Copier + Hard Drive: A Dangerous Combination.

Lawyers are used to discovering e-mail, but now what about using discovery to find copies that a opposing party made over time? Wouldn’t you like to be at your opponent’s office and see the originals of all the copies that were being made?

Well, now, fortunately — or unfortunately — you might be able to. . . .

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Use Requests for Admission For Authentication of Trial Exhibits.

17 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Exhibits, Requests for Admissions, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Use Requests for Admission For Authentication of Trial Exhibits.

Tags

Discovery, Evan Schaeffer, Requests for Admission, The Trial Practice Tips Blog, Trial Exhibits, Trial Tips and Techniques

Using Requests for Admission to Simplify Your Case, by Evan Schaeffer, The Trial Practice Tips Blog

http://tinyurl.com/m3y82eq

I have never understood why this is not used more frequently. It saves time and aggravation for the parties and the court, especially if you want an exhibit to be part of the record. – CCE

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

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

13 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Algorithm, Biomet, Discovery, E-Discovery, K&L Gates, Keyword Searching, Predictive Coding, Request for Production, Sedona Conference, Seed Set, Steering Committee

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.’

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Feel the Need For A Kindergarten Refresher? Judge Sam Sparks Arranges Opportunity for Unfortunate Counsel.

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Discovery, Judges, Sanctions, Subpoenas

≈ Comments Off on Feel the Need For A Kindergarten Refresher? Judge Sam Sparks Arranges Opportunity for Unfortunate Counsel.

Tags

Austin, Discovery, Judge Sam Sparks, Kindergarten, Subpoeanas, Texas Supreme Court

Judge Defends “Kindergarten” Order, by Nathan Koppel, Wall Street Journal Law Blog

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/09/27/austin-judge-defends-his-kindergarten-order/

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

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

25 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Daniel E. Cummins, Discovery, Judge Mehalchick, TORT TALK

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.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

When You Want Fast and Cheap, Adobe Acrobat Does the Trick in a Pinch.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Adobe Acrobat, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Legal Technology, Pre-Trial, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on When You Want Fast and Cheap, Adobe Acrobat Does the Trick in a Pinch.

Tags

Adobe Acrobat, Ball In Your Court Blog, Craig Ball, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails

Acrobat to the Rescue: Searching Unsearchable Productions, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/paxgrfn

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Court Denies Facebook Discovery Requests by Both Parties.

23 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Evidence, Legal Technology, Personal Injury, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Denies Facebook Discovery Requests by Both Parties.

Tags

Daniel E. Cummins, Discovery, Facebook, Judge Wettick, Personal Injury, Personal injury lawyer, Traffic collision

Facebook logo Español: Logotipo de Facebook Fr...

Judge Wettick Rules on Facebook Discovery Issues, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://tinyurl.com/c8p3snr

After providing a detailed review of the issue over a 22 paged Opinion, which includes a background on Facebook itself and a review of decisions from both within Pennsylvania and from outside jurisdictions, Judge Wettick ruled that both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s motions to compel access to the other’s Facebook pages would be denied in this motor vehicle accident litigation.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Judge Sparks on Fire — Again.

23 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Depositions, Discovery, Judges, Legal Writing, Subpoenas, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Judge Sparks on Fire — Again.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), David Lat, Depositions, Discovery, Judge Sam Sparks, Law Practice, Privilege and Confidentiality, Subpoenas, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Benchslap of the Day: Judge Sparks Burns More Attorneys , by By David Lat, Above the Law

http://tinyurl.com/45y5v3z

Mr. Lat shared this excerpt from the Judge’s Order:

[J]udge Sparks invited lawyers to a hearing that he referred to as a ‘kindergarten party.’ According to the ‘invitation’ — er, order — ‘[t]he party will feature many exciting and informative lessons, including… how to enter into reasonable agreements about deposition dates [and] how to limit depositions to reasonable subject matter.’ The event is aimed at lawyers who ‘are unable to practice law at the level of a first year law student.’

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

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

17 Sunday Nov 2013

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

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

Tags

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/key6ugd

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

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Email Preservation of Gmail Can be Tricky and Tedious, But Not Difficult.

17 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Email Preservation of Gmail Can be Tricky and Tedious, But Not Difficult.

Tags

Ball in Your Court, Craig Ball, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence

Collecting Gmail for Preservation, by Craig Ball, Ball in Your Court BlogExquisite-gmail red

http://tinyurl.com/mcynpsl

As Mr. Ball points out in this excerpt below, Gmail preservation is tedious, but not difficult:

[T]hough collecting and validating the complete contents of a Gmail account can be tricky and tedious, it’s not all that difficult to do.  Happily, unless you do something really dumb, it’s unlikely that even a botched Gmail collection effort will harm the contents of the account.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Where Plaintiff Knew Likelihood of Possible Litigation, Magistrate Judge Sanctions Plaintiff for Inexcusable Failure to Issue Litigation Hold.

09 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation Hold, Sanctions, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Where Plaintiff Knew Likelihood of Possible Litigation, Magistrate Judge Sanctions Plaintiff for Inexcusable Failure to Issue Litigation Hold.

Tags

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Discovery, E-Discovery, Legal Hold, Legal Pro Blog, Sam's Club, Sanctions

Law, Justice, Legislative, Legal force, Force ...

Plaintiff in Diaper Lawsuit Hit with Adverse Inference to Remedy Spoliation from Failure to Issue Legal Hold, by Legal Pro Blog

http://bit.ly/1hoswqk

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

A Discussion of the Burdens of Preserving E-Discovery

27 Sunday Oct 2013

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

AHIMA Concerned About Proposed E-Discovery Rule Changes

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Health Law

≈ Comments Off on AHIMA Concerned About Proposed E-Discovery Rule Changes

Tags

AHIMA, Discovery, E-Discovery, Health Law, Proposed Court Rules

AHIMA Comments on Proposed Changes to Federal E-Discovery Rules,iHealthBeat
http://bit.ly/1aO1nVV

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer 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

  • Create account
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • June 2024
  • 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

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 460 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • 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