Yesterday, I wrote about whether judges, like lawyers, should have an explicit technical competence requirement as well. Leave it to Craig Ball to take a somewhat complex technical concept and break it down to the fewest possible words – i.e., in a “nutshell”. Hey, judges! This might be a good place to start!
read moreSince the American Bar Association revised the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers in 2012 to add technology competence to their duty to be competent in the law and its practice, there have been 36 states that have adopted that Model Rule. How do I know that? Because Bob Ambrogi keeps track of that on his LawSites blog here. But, what about judges? Shouldn’t they have an explicit technical competence requirement as well?
read moreDoes it seem like eDiscovery production always seems to be such a big production? It doesn’t have to be. There are a number of steps you can take to minimize the stress, cost and rework associated with producing electronically stored information to opposing counsel as well as to ensure that their production to you is as useful as possible. Here’s a webcast that will help you learn the steps and concepts to keep your productions from turning into a big production.
read moreIn Shamrock-Shamrock, Inc. v. Remark, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District affirmed the summary final judgment in favor of the Appellee, holding that Florida law does not impose a duty on nonparties to litigation to preserve evidence based solely on the foreseeability of litigation.
read moreYep, it’s that time of year again. Time for Andrew Haslam’s annual eDisclosure Systems Buyers Guide!
read moreIn Thomas on Behalf of Estate of Thomas v. Bannum Place, Inc., Michigan Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti granted and denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ruling that all of the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s discovery requests “are WAIVED…because of its failure to timely respond and object to either set of Plaintiff’s discovery requests.” Judge Patti also granted “reasonable expenses” to the plaintiff in bringing her motion to compel.
read moreTwo days, two posts about eDiscovery education and best practices at law schools! Yes, it’s time for the annual Duke/EDRM Workshop in Durham, NC, later this month. And, you don’t have to be a member of Duke/EDRM to attend!
read moreThere are training courses and there are training courses, but there is no more in-depth eDiscovery training course than the Georgetown Law Center eDiscovery Training Academy. Once again, it is coming up in just over a month. And, if you hurry, you can save on registration!
read moreIn Siemers v. BNSF Railway Co., Nebraska Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis finding that the plaintiff’s telephone records are discoverable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, that they are not subject to a privilege claim just because plaintiff’s counsel’s telephone number may appear in the records and that privacy issues are minimal to non-existent (since the at-issue records do not contain the substance of communications), ordered the plaintiff to produce his telephone records within one week of the order.
read moreLast week, I discussed two public comment publications from The Sedona Conference® (TSC) from last year that were published in final form over the past few weeks. Now, TSC has announced a new publication from and its Working Group 11 on Data Security and Privacy Liability (WG11) that evaluates the application of the attorney-client privilege and work-product protection doctrine to an organization’s cybersecurity information.
read more