In Miller v. Sauberman, New York Supreme Court Justice Joan A. Madden, despite the defendant’s estimated cost of $250,000 to produce metadata related to the plaintiff’s medical records, denied the defendant’s motion for a protective order and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel the production of that metadata within 30 days of the decision and order.
read more2018 has been a very busy and significant year from an eDiscovery standpoint. This year has had everything from new data privacy laws here and in Europe to the use of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in discovery to important trends regarding the use (or non-use) of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) to a landmark SCOTUS case regarding accessing cell phone location data without a warrant. Today’s webcast will discuss what do you need to know about these and other important 2018 events and how they impact your eDiscovery efforts. It’s our last webcast of the year!
read moreIn U.S. v. Leyva, Michigan District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, while acknowledging that the ruling in Carpenter v. United States (which held that the government must obtain a warrant before acquiring cell site location information (“CSLI”)) “applies retroactively” to the defendant’s case, ruled that “the question of whether a constitutional right is retroactive is distinct from the question of whether an individual is entitled to a remedy from any constitutional violation”. Citing the “good-faith” exception, where law enforcement acts in good faith in obtaining evidence that is ultimately found to have been obtained in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights, Judge Goldsmith denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of Carpenter.
read moreThe Sedona Conference® (TSC) Conference and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) have yet another publication to announce in 2018. Last week, TSC’s WG1 group announced a new second edition commentary on Legal Holds.
read moreIn 2016, Florida became the first state to mandate technology training for lawyers, when it adopted a rule requiring lawyers to complete three hours of CLE every three years “in approved technology programs.” Then, back in May, we reported that another state was getting close to requiring technology training for part of their yearly CLE requirement. Now, that state has formally approved that requirement. Which one? Look at the graphic. ;o)
read moreThe appearance of the mashed potato graphic can only mean one thing (besides making me hungry, that is!). It’s time for the eDiscovery Market Size Mashup that Rob Robinson compiles and presents on his Complex Discovery site each year. It’s also become an annual tradition for him to release it earlier and earlier each year. And, this year is no exception.
read moreA legal analytics product being launched last week by LexisNexis analyzes the language of specific judges’ opinions to identify the cases and arguments each judge finds persuasive as well as analytics on expert witnesses. And, we remember one judge who, sadly, passed away over the weekend.
read moreThere continues to be more legal fallout from the Hewlett-Packard (HP) 2011 acquisition of Autonomy (which we covered here) and HP’s allegations that there were “serious accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and outright misrepresentations at Autonomy” before the acquisition (which forced HP to take an $8.8 billion charge in 2012. Then, earlier this year, former Autonomy CFO Sushovan Hussain was convicted of 16 counts of wire and securities fraud related to the $10.3 billion transaction. Now, more indictments have been handed down.
read moreI know it seems like we just conducted a webcast (we did, two days ago), but we already have another one coming up! 2018 has been a very busy and significant year from an eDiscovery standpoint. This year has had everything from new data privacy laws here and in Europe to the use of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in discovery to important trends regarding the use (or non-use) of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) to a landmark SCOTUS case regarding accessing cell phone location data without a warrant. Here’s a webcast that will discuss what do you need to know about these and other important 2018 events and how they impact your eDiscovery efforts.
read moreIn Dunne v. Resource Converting, LLC et al., Missouri Magistrate Judge David D. Nocel granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and to enforce, ordering the defendants to “resubmit to plaintiff the subject low-quality documents in a non-blurry, legible form digitally accessible to plaintiff, and with the same bates-stamp numbers as the original production”. Judge Nocel also ordered the defendants to pay plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses associated with his motion to compel, but decided that the plaintiff’s request for an independent forensic expert to preside over the technical discovery requests and responses was not warranted at this time.
read more