Tag Archives: Request for Production of Documents

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

21 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by 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

, , , ,

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

Using Discovery to Search for Hidden Assets.

20 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Discovery, Requests for Production, Subpoena Duces Tecum

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

Tags

, , , ,

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 →

No Perfection Standard In E-Discovery?

02 Saturday May 2015

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

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

Tags

, , , , ,

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 →

Another Way To Number Discovery Documents With Microsoft Word.

21 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , , ,

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 →

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

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , ,

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 →