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

In a July 24, 2006 National Law Journal article, Andrew Rhys Davies writes, "Reviewing electronic documents for privilege can be horribly time-consuming and expensive; and experience teaches that privileged material often slips through the net, as reviewers miss privileged communications buried in long e-mail chains or in invisible metadata. Against that background, this article examines how pending and proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence seek to address these problems. "

Click here to read the entire article.  Also seen on www.discoveryresources.org.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc., 2006 WL 2038417 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2006)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Omega Patents, LLC v. Fortin Auto Radio, Inc., 2006 WL 2038534 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2006)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Gen. Med., PC v. Morning View Care Ctrs., 2006 WL 2045890 (S.D. Ohio July 20, 2006)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Sony Corp., 2006 WL 2039968 (W.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Covucci v. Keane Consulting Group, Inc., 2006 WL 2004215 (Mass. Super. Ct. May 31, 2006)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

In an article in the National Law Journal, Carolyn Southerland writes, "Lawyers accustomed to what has been described by at least one federal district judge as "drive-by" meet and confers under the federal rules should get ready to park and prepare for an extended conversation. Whether one is a data producer (traditionally defendants) or a data requester (traditionally plaintiffs), the amendments to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are going to profoundly affect parties' discussions in "meet and confer" discussions concerning discovery.

For Luddite lawyers, these rule changes will require that they venture into a world that they dislike and perhaps on some level fear. But just as lawyers have survived past changes in the rules, they will survive these, too, and their clients and practices may well be better for it." 

Click here for the full story.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 2006 WL 2023396 (E.D. Wis. July 13, 2006)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

McDowell v. Gov’t of D.C., 2006 WL 1933809 (D.D.C. July 11, 2006)

In an earlier opinion, summarized here, Magistrate Judge John A. Facciola denied the plaintiff’s request for judgment to be entered against the defendant for various discovery failings. The court concluded that the discovery dispute could be adequately remedied by the imposition of attorneys' fees and costs against defendants and the possibility of a jury instruction. In this opinion, the court evaluated plaintiffs’ fee petition and awarded plaintiff $72,910 in fees and costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Marrero Hernandez v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 2006 WL 1967364 (D. Puerto Rico July 11, 2006)

In this opinion, the court used a five-factor test to conclude that the defendant’s “inadvertent” production of privileged materials effected a waiver.

On March 14, 2006, a third-party defendant in the case filed a motion for permission to file a counterclaim against Esso. Attached to the proposed counterclaim were several documents that were stamped with the prefix "VEGAC." Those documents had been disclosed by Esso during the months of November and December 2005. Three days later, Esso recognized the exhibits as privileged and claimed that they were inadvertently produced due to an "errant mouse click."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Peskoff v. Faber, 2006 WL 1933483 (D.D.C. July 11, 2006)

Plaintiff Jonathan Peskoff sued to recover damages for financial injury resulting from defendant Michael Faber's operation of a venture capital fund, called NextPoint Partners, LP, and the fund's related entities. NextPoint GP, LLC ("NextPoint GP") was the general partner of the venture capital fund. Both Peskoff and Faber were managing members of NextPoint GP. Peskoff alleged fraud and related claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Washington Alder LLC v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2004 WL 4076674 (D. Or. May 5, 2004)

In this recently published opinion, the court set forth its corrected order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on Weyerhaeuser for failing to preserve electronic and paper records potentially relating to antitrust litigation after June 8, 1999, when Weyerhaeuser was notified of a forthcoming antitrust claim. Plaintiff claimed that Weyerhaeuser apparently did not issue a records retention order until April 2003, and that documents potentially relevant to the case – both electronic and paper – may have been destroyed prior to then, either deliberately or by failing to take the steps necessary to preserve those documents. Plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury that it may draw an adverse inference from the destruction of documents.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2006 WL 1867478 (D. Kan. July 1, 2006)

This opinion describes the court’s in camera review of mathematical spreadsheets and other documents (“adverse impact documents”) inadvertently disclosed by the defendant, and concludes that no waiver was effected. All five relevant factors considered by the court weighed against finding waiver:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Deipenhorst v. City of Battle Creek, 2006 WL 1851243 (W.D. Mich. June 30, 2006)

In this sexual harassment action, a former police department employee asserted that her supervisor (Sgt. Penning) subjected her to unwelcome sexual advances and requests for sexual favors. This memorandum opinion grants Sgt. Penning’s motion to compel the production of original journals, notes, calendars, and other documents, so that defendant's forensic document expert might subject these items to nondestructive testing. The court rejected as unreasonable the conditions proposed by plaintiff that her own expert, as well as perhaps plaintiff's counsel, be present at all times during the forensic examination by defendant's document expert. The court noted that, in general, each party should be free to engage in its own trial preparation unhampered by the intrusive supervision of the opposing party. “In cases such as this, where purely nondestructive testing is proposed, the court generally allows the examiner to perform his or her work without being scrutinized by the opposing expert.” Further, the court observed that defendant's expert would be required to file a Rule 26(a)(2) report disclosing all his findings and would be subject to deposition and cross-examination. “This provides sufficient safeguard for any legitimate concern by plaintiff regarding the expert's methodology.”  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

• Email This
• Print
• Comments