eDiscovery Daily Blog

• October 10, 2015

Here are your ICYMI (In Case You Missed It) weekly summaries of the posts for this week (with links to the full post on our blog site) for you to check out:

Defendant Ordered to Produce Emails Between Non-Attorney Employees That Were Deemed Privileged: eDiscovery Case Law – In Cicon v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Pennsylvania District Judge Richard P. Conaboy denied the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to produce attorney-client communications that occurred before the filing of the complaint, but granted his request regarding communications between non-attorney employees before the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter threatening litigation, ordering the defendant to produce those emails, while allowing the defendant to redact explicit discussion of an attorney’s advice.

Europe’s Highest Court Strikes Down 15 Year Old Safe Harbor Agreement: eDiscovery Trends – International eDiscovery just became more difficult. A 27-year-old Austrian law graduate may have brought an end to a 15 year old agreement enabling transatlantic data transfers between the U.S. and European Union because of – wait for it – privacy concerns.

Samsung Doesn’t Have to Write a Check After All…Yet: eDiscovery Case Law – A couple of weeks ago, we revisited the Apple v. Samsung case, which we covered so much last year, it had its own category in our annual case law review. On September 18, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple’s motion for partial final judgment in the case that Apple lodged against Samsung in 2011, seemingly clearing the way for Apple to collect $548 million in damages from Samsung. But, on Friday, Samsung received an emergency stay on that order.

EDRM Has a Twist on its Fall Workshop (and a Webinar Today!): eDiscovery Trends – Around this time of year, EDRM members (like me) expect to convene for our semi-annual visit to St. Paul for the mid-year meeting. This year, EDRM has a twist on the mid-year meeting, which they’re now calling the “fall workshop”. There was also a webinar on Tuesday!

Redactions Aren’t Always as Straightforward as You Think: eDiscovery Best Practices – On the surface, it may seem easy enough to redact a document during eDiscovery review to obscure confidential or privileged information. You may think that all you need to do is draw a black box over the affected text, but there’s actually a lot more to consider in order to ensure that you don’t inadvertently produce information that was intended to be redacted. Here are some redaction failures and how to avoid them.

As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.