01 Friday Dec 2017
Posted in Admissibility, Discovery, Document Coding, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803 Exception, Rule 902
≈ Comments Off on eDiscovery Day Has Arrived.
Everlaw Guest Post: When Has a Producing Party Completed Document Review? by Josh Gilliland, Bow Tie Law
On November 24, 2017, I posted a reminder of this federal evidence rule change that became effective today, December 1st, or as Josh calls it, “eDiscovery Day.” Josh Gilliland’s post and webpage covers the changes in more depth, and are worth a bookmark for future reference. Don’t overlook the tweets on the right-hand side of the page. -CCE
11 Tuesday Oct 2016
Posted 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.
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
19 Thursday Mar 2015
Posted in Attorney Fees and Costs, Depositions, Discovery, E-Discovery, Hard Drives, Taxation of Costs, Video Deposition
≈ Comments Off on Imaging A Hard Drive = Making A Copy And Within Plain Meaning Of Taxation Of Costs.
Tags
Bow Tie Law Blog, E-Discovery, Hard Drives, Josh Gilliland, Taxation of Costs, Video Depositions
Stating Reality: Imaging a Hard Drive Makes a Copy, by Josh Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law
https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/stating-reality-imaging-a-hard-drive-makes-a-copy/
Taxation of cost cases do not generally have happy endings for recovering eDiscovery costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a very important opinion on March 17, 2015 well grounded in the reality of civil litigation and the law where eDiscovery costs were recovered.
It also takes a swing at Race Tires, which is always a welcome read.
The Court of Appeals held that the cost of video deposition synchronization and transcript were properly taxed. Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Ams., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4184, 2-3 (6th Cir. Ohio 2015). The Trial Court had determined the synchronized video deposition was ‘reasonably necessary’ and the opposing party never explained how the costs were either unreasonable or unnecessary. Id.
For anyone who has conducted deposition review, this is good news. I have spent many hours reviewing depositions and video depositions. ‘Reasonably necessary’ is an understatement. Synced video depos allow you to understand the context of the testimony. A simple question and answer in a transcript can look harmless, but if the video shows the deponent turning bright red, biting his lip, and answering the question with his teeth clinched, you know that testimony is important. . . .
