E-DISCOVERY

Thomas Y. Allman, Local Rules, Standing Orders, and Model Protocols: Where the Rubber Meets the (E-Discovery) Road

Date 04/03/2013.

19 Rich. J. L. & Tech 8 (2013), available at http://jolt.richmond.edu/v19i3/article8.pdf   From the Article: “A large number of federal districts have undertaken local initiatives to deal with e-Discovery.  Some merely make passing reference to e-Discovery in local rules while others explicitly describe topics deemed worthy of attention or mandate specific measures to resolve open e-discovery issues.  […]

New York City Bar, E-Discovery Guide for Lawyers

Date 03/31/2013.

From the presentation of the Guide in the newsletter 44th Street Notes – May 20, 2013: “The City Bar’s E-Discovery Working Group has issued an E-Discovery Guide for Lawyers. The Guide is intended to offer an overview of procedures and steps an attorney should take when handling electronically-stored information (ESI), including: the identification of ESI; […]

Harris v. Subcontracting Concepts, LLC, Case No. 1:12-MC-82, 2013 WL 951336 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2013)

Date 03/11/2013.

On March 11, 2013, a New York District Court issued an order recognizing TAR as an acceptable search methodology, able to reduce discovery’s costs and burdens. The court rejected a burden argument on the grounds that “[w]ith the advent of software, predictive coding, spreadsheets and similar advances, the time and cost to produce large reams […]

Conn. General Life Ins. Co. v. Earl Scheib, Inc., 2013 WL 485846 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013)

Date 02/06/2013.

During a discovery dispute defendant [Earl Sheib] was requested to produce several documents. Defendant objected that the cost of production in response to this discovery request, when considered against the claim itself, renders production unduly burdensome. The court sustained defendant’s objection considering that the cost estimate certainly suggests that the email documentation is unduly burdensome […]

Gabriel Tech. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 09-cv-1992, 2013 WL 410103 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013)

Date 02/01/2013.

On February 1, 2013, a California District Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion for more than $2.8 million in fees associated with a “computer assisted, algorithm-driven document review” of almost 12 million records – mostly in the form of Electronically Stored Information (ESI). The court awarded the defendant attorney’s fees and TAR-related costs under […]

Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV

Date 01/08/2013.

In this case, the Northern District of Illinois ruled that – even though litigants become increasingly dependent on vendors to assist with the discovery process – they must still understand, direct and approve the vendors’ activities. In this patent infringement suit, the defendant was found to have control over its China-based supplier and, in particular, […]

Lauren Ann Ross, A Comparative Critique to U.S. Courts’ Approach to E-Discovery in Foreign Trials, 11 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 313 (2012)

Date 12/31/2012.

The Author’s Abstract: “This Issue Brief explores an oft-neglected irony in international e-discovery: the rationales used by courts to compel discovery against foreign parties embroiled in litigation in U.S. courts may contradict courts’ reasoning when compelling discovery against U.S. parties engaged in litigation overseas. U.S. courts often grant petitions for discovery, increasingly electronic in form, […]