Archive: March 2015

1
Sixth Circuit Affirms Recovery of e-Discovery Costs for Imaging Plaintiff’s Computer
2
Upcoming Events
3
“The power of a U.S. Court to require compliance with U.S. discovery obligations does not arise until and unless the Court has jurisdiction.”
4
Magistrate Judge Peck Addresses TAR, Provides Insight on Important Issues

Sixth Circuit Affirms Recovery of e-Discovery Costs for Imaging Plaintiff’s Computer

Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Amers. Inc., 781 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 2015)

In this opinion, the court addressed the recovery of taxable costs related to e-Discovery and concluded that “a plain reading of the statute authorizes courts to tax the reasonable cost of imaging, provided the image file was necessarily obtained for use in the case.”  Accordingly, the circuit court affirmed the lower court’s award related to the cost of imaging Plaintiff’s personal computer. Read More

Upcoming Events

Strafford – E-Discovery Strategies: Preparing for New FRCP Amendments on Proportionality and Managing ESI

April 14, 2015
1-2:30 PM EDT
Webinar

Join K&L Gates attorney Bree Kelly and her fellow panelists for a discussion of “E-Discovery Strategies: Preparing for New FRCP Amendments on Proportionality and Managing ESI.”  The discussion will cover a range of topics, including a review of the proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and 37(e), strategies for achieving proportionality, best practices for preserving ESI and avoiding sanctions, best practices for information management and a review of court decisions addressing proportionality.

To learn more or to register, click here.

PBI – eDiscovery Symposium

April 17, 2015
PBI Professional Development Conference Ctr.
Heinz 57 Center, 339 Sixth Ave, 7th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA

Join K&L Gates partner Thomas J. Smith for a day of e-Discovery.  Mr. Smith will participate in two of the day’s nine informative panels.  First, at 11:20, join Mr. Smith and a panel of experts for a discussion of proposed amendments to both local and federal rules (“Amendments to FRCP/Amendments to local rules).  Then, at 3:00, Mr. Smith will moderate a panel of judges (Chief Judge Conti, Judge Kelly, and Judge Lenihan) in a roundtable discussion of important topics affecting e-Discovery practice in Federal Court (“e-Discovery Practice in Federal Court: Judges’ Roundtable Discussion).

To learn more or to register, click here.

“The power of a U.S. Court to require compliance with U.S. discovery obligations does not arise until and unless the Court has jurisdiction.”

Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd., No. 1-11-cv-824, 2015 WL 631045 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2015)

In this case, the court addressed several discovery issues, including the question of when Defendant’s duty to preserve arose.  The Intervenor/Counter Defendant asserted the duty arose in 2002.  Defendant—an Australian Corporation—asserted the duty could no t have arisen before August 2012, when it consented to U.S. jurisdiction and, “even if it had, it was not before [Defendant] was served on December 8, 2011.” Acknowledging that the defendant was not excused from the preservation obligation merely because it is a foreign company, the court nonetheless determined that because Defendant was an Australian company with no presence or significant sales in United States and because Australia was the anticipated jurisdiction of “License-related disputes,” the duty to preserve arose when Defendant was served with the complaint in December, 2011:

Read More

Magistrate Judge Peck Addresses TAR, Provides Insight on Important Issues

Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 872294 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015)

Taking up the topic of technology-assisted review (“TAR”), Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck’s most recent opinion declares that “it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it.” Despite this, there remain open issues surrounding the use of TAR, including, as Magistrate Judge Peck noted, the question of “how transparent and cooperative the parties need to be with respect to the seed or training set(s).” And, while this opinion did not resolve that question (because the parties in the present case agreed to “a protocol that discloses all non-privileged documents in the control sets”), it does provide some notable commentary on the issue

Read More

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.