Electronic Discovery Law Firm : K&L Gates : Electronic Discovery Law

“Learn how to Bring Agility and Clarity to the Management of your eDiscovery Process”

May 21-22, 2013
Marriot City Center
Pittsburgh, PA

“The mastery of electronic discovery is a necessary component in the changing business of litigation.  The tools for the seamless management of e discovery workflow are imperative for success.  This is not a vendor-led discussion. Rather, it's two full days of CLE accredited implementable strategy you won't want to miss.”

You can expect to learn more about: Big data, Information Governance and eDiscovery; Technology Assisted Review; Corporate IT Policies, and The Cross-Border eDiscovery Conundrum.

Join K&L Gates’ Partner Thomas J. Smith and others for a discussion about “Making Your Process Faster, Easier, Safer and More Cost-Effective” and “hear proposals for increased agility in the management of your in-house procedures, making up-front process pay off in the long run.”

To learn more about this conference, or to register, click here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Country Vintner of North Carolina, LLC v. E & J Gallo Winery, Inc., ---F. 3d.---, 2013 WL 1789728 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2013)

In this case, the Fourth Circuit clarified “what expenses related to electronically stored information (“ESI”) are taxable under the federal taxation-of-costs statute as '[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case'” and affirmed the district court’s order “taxing only the costs of converting electronic files to non-editable formats, and transferring files onto CDs.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., NO. 3:12-MD-2391 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013)

In this product liability case, Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee objected to Biomet’s reliance on keyword searching to initially reduce the volume of information it then subjected to predictive coding and sought to require Biomet to start again and to utilize only predictive coding, with plaintiffs’ input.  The court concluded that Biomet’s efforts complied with its discovery obligations under the civil rules.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

W Holding Co., Inc. v. Chartis Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, No. CIV. 11-2271 GAG, 2013 WL 1352426 (D.P.R. Apr. 3, 2013)

In this case the court addressed competing proposed protocols for the discovery of electronically stored information and declined to approve a provision that would require cost-shifting, among others.  Notably, the court rejected the argument that the at-issue ESI was inaccessible (thus justifying cost-shifting) because the responding party did not show “that access to [the data] is hindered by any unique technological hurdles.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 10-cv-1090-ES-SCM, 2013 WL 1285285 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2013)

In this personal injury action, the court imposed spoliation sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to preserve his Facebook account.

Plaintiff alleged that as the result of a work-related accident he sustained numerous injuries that rendered him permanently disabled.  Defendants sought production of information related to Plaintiff’s social media accounts and online business activities such as eBay.  In response, Plaintiff provided signed authorizations for the release of information from certain sites, but did not include authorization for the release of records from Facebook.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In what is possibly the final chapter to last year's Da Silva Moore predictive coding saga, the Second Circuit has denied Plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the recusal of Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck.  For those unfamiliar with the issues in this case, copies of the underlying decisions from both Magistrate Judge Peck and District Court Judge Carter are available here and here.  While a copy of the Second Circuit's denial is available below, the full text of the order states:

Petitioners, through counsel, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the recusal of Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.  Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioners have not “clearly and indisputably demonstrate[d] that [Magistrate Judge Peck] abused [his] discretion” in denying their district court recusal motion, In re Basciano, 542 F. 3d 950, 956 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312-13 (2d Cir. 1988)), or that the district court erred in overruling their objection to that decision.

A copy of the court's order is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In January, The Sedona Conference® made available the "post-public comment" version of its Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery, first published in 2010.  The publication is available for download, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc. ERISA Litig., No. AW 09-2661, 2013 WL 1187909 (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2013)

In this brief opinion, the court considered Defendants’ claim that the burden of producing the requested ESI outweighed its potential benefit to the class action plaintiffs and granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.  Specifically, Defendants claimed that Plaintiffs’ search terms, as applied to the ESI of selected custodians from the relevant discovery time frame, “hit” on approximately 200,000 documents and that it would cost approximately $388,000 “to process host and review the data for responsiveness and privilege.”  Defendants did not, however, suggest alternative measures to accommodate Plaintiffs’ discovery needs “other than negotiating more refined search terms.” 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

EEOC v. The Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Inc., No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2013)

Previously in this case, the court ordered broad discovery of the claimants’ social media, text messages and email.  (See a summary of that opinion, here.)  In this opinion, the court imposed sanctions for the EEOC’s actions which resulted in unnecessary delays and expense for the defendant, including actions related to the facilitation of the court ordered discovery.  Notably, the sanctions were imposed pursuant to Rule 16(f), based on the Tenth Circuit’s “broader” interpretation of its application.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks