CloudNine
Finally, I asked several of our stalwarts to address the questions I posed back in the Introduction to this article. Let’s see what their answers were.
read more
In 4DD Holdings, LLC v. U.S., the US Court of Federal Claims, in an opinion issued by Judge Bruggink, “grant[ed] plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions because the government destroyed relevant evidence that it had a duty to preserve.” The Court directed the plaintiffs to “file a motion, appropriately supported, seeking a recovery of its costs and fees related to the motion for sanctions and with respect to discovery prompted by the destruction of evidence” and indicated it would “defer until summary judgment or trial the application of the evidentiary implications of this ruling.” The court also denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss “[b]ecause plaintiffs established that the government authorized or consented to SMS’s allegedly infringing activity when working in SMS labs.”
read more
The next most popular choice for plaintiff eDiscovery pain points was lack of competence. Let’s see what our group of attorneys had to say about that challenge for plaintiffs’ attorneys.
read more
Sure, we’ve talked about California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). And, we’ve also noted that there are at least 15 state data privacy laws that are working their way through the legislative process. But, is there anybody pushing for a national data privacy law? At least one Federal agency is doing so.
read more
Now let’s turn to some of the individual responses. As I mentioned in part two, the most popular choice for plaintiff eDiscovery pain points was cooperation, so let’s take a look at the attorneys’ specific responses regarding cooperation challenges.
read more
In Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., Kansas Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering the defendant to produce documents related to two requests and, with regard to a third request, ordering the defendant to “produce these documents to the extent that such documents are captured by the ESI search protocol.”
read more
With regard to my question regarding pain points in plaintiffs’ eDiscovery work, here is what our attorneys identified as the top 3 pain points experienced by plaintiffs’ attorneys.
read more
Geez, if that blog post title doesn’t get your attention, I don’t know what will. The answer is: of course not! But, how do you demonstrate to your boss that you deserve a raise? Leave to Rob Robinson and another “mashup” to give you the data you need to make your point!
read more
Approximately 2/3 of my consulting practice revolves around issues with ESI production. Much of that work involves asymmetrical cases where one side, typically corporate defendants, has the vast majority of discovery. And since my experience is not untypical, what we see in eDiscovery practice is a heavy focus in the eDiscovery world on defense strategy, both in actual practice and educational conferences. But what about strategy for the Plaintiff’s bar? Do they have different even dramatically different needs simply because they have less ESI? This paper will take a look at that.
read more
Big surprise there, right? So says the 2019 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR), which analyzes the reported cybersecurity and data breach incidents for the year. According to this year’s report, senior C-level executives are 12 times more likely to be the target of social engineering attacks, and 9 times more likely to be the target of social breaches than in previous years, with financial motivation the key driver in these attacks.
read more