Four years after Da Silva Moorev. Publicis Groupe., 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), laid the foundation for use of predictive coding or technology assisted review (TAR) in electronic discovery, Judge Peck has issued a new opinion dealing with predictive coding. In this fraud case, he stressed that it is “inappropriate to hold TAR to a […]
On April 27, 2016, the US Ohio District Court granted Plaintiff’s preservation motion requiring a non-party to preserve certain evidence, but declined to impose preservation to be carried out through forensic imaging. Plaintiff demonstrated a real danger that evidence in non-party possession will be destroyed absent a court order. The Court observed that the non-party […]
A California federal court held that sanctions for spoliation are proper when a party consciously disregards its obligations to preserve relevant evidence (and in particular did not make sure that the documents were irretrievable before discarding the device allegedly destroyed by a power surge) and as result the other side is deprived of the documents […]
The amendments to F.R.Civ.P 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 55 and 84 approved on April 29, 2015 (see here), will take effect on December 1, 2015. The amendments will affect e-discovery issues (as discussed also in our previous article). Specifically, new Rule 37(e) – addressing ESI (Electronically Stored Information) preservation and sanctions – provides greater uniformity […]
West v Houston County of Georgia et al, 5:13-cv-00338-CAR On November 2, 2015, a Georgia federal court (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia) issued an order granting Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude all evidence and argument regarding spoliation: Plaintiff failed to show prejudice, and the Court found a danger of confusing the […]
E-discovery is inseparable from the issue of ethics. Because lawyer duties and requirements permeate the realm of e-discovery, they invariably implicate lawyers’ ethical duties. This is illustrated by the fact that the most notorious e-discovery cases are ones where lawyers are heavily sanctioned – including referral to a state bar for disciplinary proceedings. This article […]
Read Part One II. Candor F.R.C.P. 26(g) has its own Rule-11-type signature provision for discovery requests, responses and objections. If the certification of truthfulness, completeness, and propriety in law and fact violates the rule “without substantial justification,” the court is required to impose “an appropriate sanction” on counsel, the represented party, or both. Additional requirements […]
Information Law Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 2, Autumn 2015 From the article Privilege protections encourage full and candid communication between legal counsel and clients. These communications plainly serve a valuable role — but, protecting privileged communications during discovery can become one of the most time consuming and expensive elements of large-scale e-discovery projects. And, in […]
On July 17, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified that U.S.C. 28 § 1782 requires the applicant to show that discovery seeks material “for use” in a foreign proceeding. It is not necessary for the applicant to show that the proceeding could not be started without the foreign material. […]
The case An Italian Court had to decide on a request for payment of legal fees of a Lawyer against a client. The client had not fulfilled her obligation towards the Lawyer, who sued her, producing as evidence some e-mails. Therefore, as the court itself said, “To ascertain the right fulfillment of burden of […]