Please Note: Since the date of the original post, the Model Order has been removed from the Federal Circuit’s website. The following statement now appears on the web page of the Advisory Council for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: The Advisory Council published model orders concerning e-discovery and limitations on claims… Continue Reading
Last month The Sedona Conference made available a public comment version of its newest publication, The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation: Resources for the Judiciary (“The Resources”). The Resources “are intended to assemble and promote a variety of proven judicial management tools to help parties develop and execute appropriate, cost-effective, cooperative discovery plans; avoid unnecessary discovery… Continue Reading
United States v. Briggs, No. 10CR184S, 2011 WL 4017886 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2011)
Defendants were charged with several counts related to the distribution of cocaine. In its disclosures, the Government produced thousands of pages of documents as well as audio recordings, none of which were text searchable. Defendants sought reproduction. Noting the lack of relevant criminal rules and discussing the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, the court relied upon its inherent authority to order reproduction in native format or in a PDF format “suitable for searching.”
Williams v. District of Columbia, No. 06-02076 (CKK), 2011 WL 3659308 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2011)
In this case, the court denied the defendant’s motion to exclude an inadvertently produced email where the defendant failed to satisfy the burden of establishing that reasonable steps were taken to prevent disclosure and where the defendant failed to promptly take reasonable steps to rectify the error. In so holding, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that its actions pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5)(B) (i.e. sending a written request for the return of the email) were sufficient to discharge its obligations under FRE 502(b)(3).
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 7508(SAS), 2011 WL 3738979 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011)
In this case, the Special Master considered the question of whether, under the particular circumstances of this case, emails and their attachments should be considered singular or separate entities and thus, whether they must be produced together. While no definitive answer emerged, the Special Master’s consideration of the issues and resulting recommendation are illuminating, and were ultimately adopted by District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin.
Katiroll Co., Inc. v. Kati Roll & Platters, Inc., No. 10-3620 (GEB), 2011 WL 3583408 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2011) In this trademark infringement case, Plaintiff sought sanctions for defendants’ alleged spoliation of several categories of evidence, including the contents of the individual defendant’s Facebook page. Specifically, plaintiff sought sanctions for the defendant’s failure to preserve… Continue Reading