In Shawe v. Elting, the Delaware Supreme Court found that the Court of Chancery followed the correct legal standards and made no errors of law in its sanctions award of over $7 million against the appellant, agreeing with the lower court that his behavior was “unusually deplorable”.
read moreHere’s a question for you: Would you believe what a lawyer was telling you during closing arguments if his pants were, literally, on fire?
read moreIn Below v. Yokohama Tire Corp., Wisconsin District Judge William M. Conley, deciding on several pre-trial motions, granted (to an extent) the defendants’ motion for relief due to spoliation of evidence for failing to preserve the truck involved in a crash, stating that “defendants persuasively argue that the absence of this evidence should at minimum preclude plaintiffs from using it as a sword, even if defendants cannot use it as a shield.”
read moreA lot is happening in eDiscovery these days and it’s harder than ever to keep up. I have no choice to keep up with current eDiscovery trends – I write a daily blog, so I have to continue to find new topics to write about. Thankfully, you don’t have to do that – you can attend a one hour webcast later this month for a recap of recent key eDiscovery trends and case law to stay current with today’s trends in eDiscovery, information governance and cybersecurity.
read moreIn Fischer v. Forrest, Nos. 14 Civ. 1304 (PAE) (AJP), 14 Civ. 1307 (PAE) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017), New York Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck ordered the defendants “to revise their Responses to comply with the Rules”, specifically Rule 34(b)(2)(B) and Rule 34(b)(2)(C), amended in December 2015 requiring objections to be stated with specificity and directing that an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.
read moreWe look forward to the eDiscovery Market Size Mashup that Rob Robinson compiles and presents on his Complex Discovery site each year. Each of the first three years that we covered it, the Mashup was released in July – with estimates for 2012 to 2017, for 2013 to 2018 and 2014-2019 (in two parts). Last year, the Mashup was released early, at the end of April for 2015 to 2020. This year, the Mashup is even earlier: Rob has released his worldwide eDiscovery services and software overview for 2016 to 2021 now!
read moreAccording to a survey conducted by Consilio and released earlier this week, 75 percent of legal technology professionals responding to the survey indicated that they are not familiar with China’s new Cybersecurity Law, which was passed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, China’s top legislature, in November 2016. The new law is set to go into effect on June 1.
read moreToday’s thought leader is Craig Ball. A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered almost 2,000 presentations and papers. Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media and he teaches E-Discovery and Digital Evidence at the University of Texas School of Law. He currently blogs on eDiscovery topics at ballinyourcourt.com.
read moreToday at 12:00pm CT (1:00pm ET, 10:00 am PT), CloudNine will be conducting a webcast titled Best Practices for eDiscovery Searching via the BrightTALK network. There’s still time to register for it, if you haven’t already!
read moreThis webcast will cover key events, trends, and developments that occurred over the course of last year and how they impact those in the eDiscovery community.
read moreOn-Premise Processing and Review offer unique advantages that the cloud alone can’t replicate. Make an informed decision. |
