Ralph Losey graciously agreed to continue our conversation over emerging case law tomorrow (Wednesday, October 27) at 1PM EST/10 PM EST. Register here.
We will be talking about the “gang that couldn’t spoliate straight”, Judge Grimm’s highly instructive and entertaining look at Victor Stanley Revisited. We will also talk about an ERISA case (YAWN) with ediscovery wagging the tail of the dog (ok, awake now). We are probably going to walk through the Maguire Woods opinion on the unrequited 502 clawback. Ralph has written on these three cases extensively, as is his custom, for his wonderful ediscovery team blog.
Fios graciously moved upcontinue…
Ralph Losey, Brett Anders (both of Jackson Lewis, the national workplace law firm) and I will finish our discussion of the hot cases of last quarter on Wednesday, August 4, 2010. Register here.
With an embarrassment of riches of cases to delve into, it was not surprising that we have a couple left over.
We’ll be talking about the Crispin case (Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 2010 WL 2293238 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2010)). This case has the SCA (Stored Communications Act), Facebook, and the balancing act between what is public and what is private.
Bray and Gillespie, the case thatcontinue…
The ever alert Ralph Losey posted a note about another amendment to the Pension Committee decision by Judge Shira Scheindlin:
At page 10, lines 7-10 replace <By contrast, the failure to obtain records from all employees (some of whom may have had only a passing encounter with the issued in the litigation), as opposed to key players, likely constitutes negligence as opposed to a higher degree of culpability.> with <By contrast, the failure to obtain records from all those employees who had any involvement with the issues raised in the litigation or anticipated litigation, as opposed to key players, could constitute negligence.>.
Judge Scheindlin’s last amendment was to correctcontinue…
Wed. 3/24 – Mary Mack welcomes Charles W. Cohen (Partner, Co-Chair, eDiscovery Practice Group, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP) for Fios’ quarterly e-discovery case law update. They will explore recent court decisions, including Judge Scheindlin’s most recent ruling; the impact these cases may have and are already having; and tactics and strategies organizations should consider to help control their e-discovery costs and risks. More info / register >
Records managers will be taking a new look at “Create dates” after the Arizona Supreme Court mandated production of metadata in public records.
The case involved a demoted police officer who wanted access to the metadata to prove notes were backdated. Up until now, most cases have held that there must be a showing that metadata is necessary before ordering its production. While this case may be applied narrowly for Arizona public records, it may impact other governmental entities and courts.
“It would be illogical, and contrary to the policy of openness underlying the public records law, to conclude that public entities can withhold information embedded in
The money quote: “BNSF, through its spokesperson, Suann Lundsberg, told Minnesota Lawyer that there was an issue six years ago regarding evidence preservation and acknowledged that BNSF could have done a more thorough job of documenting that the gates and lights were properly activated.”
This fascinating story, from Minnesota Lawyer, of sanctions and fully complying with discovery is a good read. Continue reading….
By Fernando M. Pinguelo and Andrew K. Taylor
Earlier we reported that a New Jersey state trial court found that a former employee waived the attorney-client privilege when she decided to use company time, equipment, and resources to communicate with her lawyer. Recently, an appellate court reversed that ruling and framed the issue as “whether workplace regulations converted an employee’s emails with her attorney ” sent through the employee’s personal, password-protected, web-based email account, but via her employer’s computer “into the employer’s property.”
Plaintiff had argued that the company failed to demonstrate that it had ever adopted or distributed the policy in question, that she was unaware that thecontinue…
This just in, from InformationWeek Global CIO: “An appeals court rejected Ron Perelman’s request for a new trial in a case that saw the cosmetics tycoon win a $1.5 billion judgment against Morgan Stanley, only to see the award overturned on appeal. Much of the original case centered on Morgan Stanley’s failure to produce e-mails that Perelman wanted entered as evidence.” Continue reading….
Legal Holds & Trigger Events, is a blog dedicated to cases, insights, developments and best practices relating to the development and implementation of legal holds relating to audit, investigation and litigation in the United States; and trigger events that give rise to the duty to preserve evidence in the United States.
Today they review a report of In Shukla v. Sharma (EDNY Aug. 21, 2009),in which a Hindu Priest, claimed that the Ashram he lived and worked for in New York illegally trafficked him into the US in 2000 and enslaved him.
The primary discussion of the Report is a summary judgment motion by defendants, but a spoliation motion alsocontinue…
California Lawyer this month has a interesting article by Perry L. Segal, an IT executive turned e-discovery attorney and consultant. “Remember the old adage “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? In the e-discovery universe, you’ll need several pounds. The California Electronic Discovery Act has been in place for about three months, and I’ve been fielding a lot of inquiries. The number one question is: “How much is all this going to cost?”
Answer: How much do you have?”