Search Results for “proportionality” – Page 12

True Grit: Four Models to Rein in E-Discovery Costs

Jan 30 2012

By Robyn Weisman & Monica Bay
Law Technology News, January 30, 2012

Today’s top law firms and their corporate clients are struggling to find the right combination of people, processes, technology — and facilities — to effectively control the quality and costs of electronic data discovery. The risks are acutely visible for those who stumble: not just court-ordered sanctions, but lost data, cases, clients, profits, and reputations. So how can major firms speed up the processes, hire the right personnel, meet ethical obligations to protect client confidentiality, cooperate with opposing counsel, maintain proportionality (i.e., not spend more on EDD than appropriate for the potential exposure of a case) — yet quickly find and process appropriate data? There’s no "one size fits all" single answer, but four models seem to be developing as loose frames:

To read the entire article, click here.

District of Delaware Adopts Revised Default Standards for Discovery

Dec 09 2011

Effective yesterday, the District of Delaware has adopted revised default standards for discovery, including electronic discovery. The standards cover a broad range of e-discovery issues from cooperation and proportionality to preservation, privilege, and format of production, among others. Clearly intended to provide more than just general guidance to parties before the court, the default standards are quite specific (e.g, identification of categories of ESI not presumptively subject to preservation and mandated formats for production) and parties are therefore advised to carefully consult the guidelines when practicing in the District of Delaware.

A copy of the guidelines is available for download here.

Wood v. Capital One Servs., LLC, No. 5:09-CV-1445, 2011 WL 2154279 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel additional discovery, including ?sweeping searches of ESI using suggested search terms? where, following significant analysis of the rule of proportionality (26(b)(2)(C)), the court determined that the ?minimally relevant information to be developed through the discovery? was ?far outweighed by the burden? associated with it, but left open plaintiff?s option to bear the cost of the discovery himself

Nature of Case: Violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

For e-Discovery Efforts “Wholly Devoid of Competence” and for Spoliation, Court Orders Sanctions and Prohibits Indemnification from Insurer

Jul 14 2011

PIC Group, Inc. v. LandCoast Insulation, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-662-KS-MTP, 2011 WL 2669144 (S.D. Miss. July 7, 2011)

A Special Master determined that defendant’s discovery failures were largely the result of a “callous and careless attitude” rather than a “craven effort to hide or destroy information”, save one instance of intentional deletion by defendant’s Manager of Legal Affairs. Adopting in part the Special Master’s recommendations, the court ordered sanctions, including production of the non-privileged contents of the manager’s hard drive and payment of plaintiff’s attorney’s costs and fees, with the condition that payment be rendered by defendant, not its insurance company.

No Sanctions for Failure to Preserve Disaster Recovery Back-up Tapes where Other Preservation Efforts were Reasonable “In the Context of This Case”

Jun 13 2011

Gaalla v. Citizens Med. Ctr., No. V-10-14, 2011 WL 2115670 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011)

Plaintiffs moved for sanctions based on defendant’s failure to preserve its disaster recovery back-up tapes, which were overwritten every seven or fourteen days, even after the filing of this lawsuit. Further, “as the briefing developed,” plaintiffs “appeared to contend” that even absent a duty to preserve the disaster recovery back-up tapes themselves, “[defendant]’s failure to preserve the back-up tapes in conjunction with the failure to take timely ‘snapshots’… of relevant email accounts, and evidence that certain CMC employees had deleted emails from their account at some point in the past warrant[ed] severe sanctions.”

Upcoming Events: Summer 2011

May 25 2011

Executive Counsel Institute’s e-Discovery for the Corporate Market

June 16-17, 2011
Park Hyatt Hotel
Chicago

K&L Gates Partner Martha Dawson will moderate a discussion entitled “Effective Cost and Risk Containment Steps to Achieve Proportionality” on June 16th at 4:15 PM.

To learn more or to register, click here.

6th Annual Solo and Small Firm Conference (Sponsored by the Washington State Bar Association)

July 14-16, 2011
Ocean Shores Convention Center
Ocean Shores, WA

K&L Gates Staff Lawyer Beau Holt will present on the topic of “Ethics and Electronic Communication (Other than Social Media)” at 9:15 AM on Friday, July 15th. Topics to be addressed include ethical duties and technology habits; the web, the cloud, and metadata; and e-discovery and privilege in litigation.

To learn more, click here.

The Sedona Conference® Publishes “Database Principles”

Apr 18 2011

In its most recent publication (available now in its Public Comment Version) the Sedona Conference takes on another difficult issue of e-discovery: the preservation and production of databases and database information. The publication, The Sedona Conference® Database Principles: Addressing the Preservation & Production of Databases and Database Information in Civil Litigation, is intended to “provide practical guidance and recommendations to both requesting and producing parties” and to “simplify discovery in civil actions involving databases and information derived from databases.” In furtherance of those goals, the publication includes an informative introduction to the issue of preserving and producing database information, a discussion of the application of some of the existing Sedona Principles, and a discussion of the six new Database Principles and their practical application. The six new Database Principles are:

“No Matter How Inadequate a Party’s Preservation Efforts May Be … Sanctions are Not Warranted Unless there is Proof that Some Information of Significance has Actually Been Lost”

Nov 19 2010

Orbit One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 271 F.R.D. 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Addressing defendant’s motion for sanctions, the court found that although “plaintiffs did not engage in model preservation of electronically stored information in this case,” they were not subject to sanctions absent evidence that any relevant information had actually been destroyed. Significantly, in reaching this decision, the court took issue with certain aspects of the often-cited Pension Committee decision issued in the same jurisdiction earlier this year as well as with the discovery standard of “reasonableness and proportionality” set forth in another cited opinion, Rimkus v. Cammarata.

Upcoming Events -December

Nov 12 2010

Thomson Reuters 14th Annual Electronic Discovery and Records Retention Conference – Achieving Practical Proportionality

Dec. 1-2, 2010
San Francisco Marriott Marquis
55 4th St.
San Francisco, CA 94103

K&L Gates Partner Julie Anne Halter will participate in this conference which will address a myriad of topics, including e-discovery in all cases, proportionality, early case assessment, litigation with the government and much more.

To learn more or to register, click here.

Court Finds Data Not Reasonably Accessible, Orders Phased Approach to Discovery, and Declines to Shift the Cost of Production

Oct 14 2010

Barrera v. Boughton, 2010 WL 3926070 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2010)

Despite diligent efforts, the parties were unable to reach agreement regarding the appropriate scope of a search for responsive information. Plaintiffs proposed 40 custodians, 80 search terms, and a timeframe of nearly seven years. Defendants sought a phased approach and proposed limiting the initial search to three custodians, with plaintiffs to bear the cost. Defendants also objected to the temporal scope of discovery. Citing Rule 26(b)(2)(B), the court found the information sought “not reasonably accessible” and reduced the scope of the search, but denied defendants’ motion to shift costs.

Search Results For -proportionality