Accessibility Links


eDiscovery Blogs

  1. Electronic Discovery and Evidence
  2. E-Discovery Bytes
  3. Electronic Discovery Law
  4. e-Lessons Learned
  5. Legal Holds and Trigger Events
  6. Legal Project Management
  7. e-Discovery Team
  8. Ride the Lightning
  9. BeSpacific
  10. EDD Update
  11. Electronic Discovery Navigator
  12. Electronic Discovery Blog
  13. Inter Alia
  14. PivotalDiscovery
  15. Strategic Legal Technology
  16. Document Control Group E-Discovery Center


  • Court Upholds Sanctions against "International Man of Mystery" citing Affirmative Actions to Destroy Relevant Documents in Unallocated Space
  • For e-Discovery Efforts "Wholly Devoid of Competence" and for Spoliation, Court Orders Sanctions and Prohibits Indemnification from Insurer
  • Court Rejects Refusal to Issue Litigation Hold Before 26(f) Conference, Orders Litigation Hold on All Evidence Reasonably Related to Pending Litigation
  • Upcoming Events - July 2011

(news from K & L Gates)

Ralph Losey and Brett Anders, Case Law Update Part 2

by Mary Mack

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 that eclipses Qualcomm as the most exciting saga of ediscovery mishaps and sanctions, is also on the docket.  Bray & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 5218035 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2009); Bray & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2010 WL 55595 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2010)

We’ll be talking trash and archives during the In re A & M Florida Properties II, LLC discussion.

Brett, Ralph and I will be happy to take questions about Part 1 (archive here).  We put Qualcomm to bed, and went through Quon, the text messages and the Supreme Court–and the Pinpoint case from the 2nd Circuit that said preserving by setting aside was negligent when the evidence set aside went bad.  How many companies make copies of all of their preserved material, as this case suggests?  We also looked at Mt. Hawley, where privilege was lost due to a corrupted index causing inadvertent production.  The court here suggested sampling would have demonstrated due diligence to save the privilege.

We also discussed the amendments, not to the FRCP, but to Judge Shira Scheindlin’s Pension Committee case. Ralph broke the news of the last amendment on his blog.

We’ll see if we can keep ourselves from meandering into the treasure trove of cases supplied by Farrah Pepper and the Electronic Discovery and Information Law Group Steering Committee at Gibson Dunn.  Move over,, there is some serious competition for comprehensive case reviews.

Join us on Wednesday, August 4, 2010.  Register here.  Send me a note if there is something you’d like to see covered.

By Mary Mack, Corporate Technology Counsel, Fios.

One Response to “Ralph Losey and Brett Anders, Case Law Update Part 2”

  1. Ralph Losey and Brett Anders, Case Law Update Part 2 | « Learn About E-Discovery Says:

    [...] Ralph Losey and Brett Anders, Case Law Update Part 2 | by lstrainer on August 4, 2010 Ralph Losey and Brett Anders, Case Law Update Part 2 | E-Discovery Resources & Information &#821…. [...]

Leave a Comment

©2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Please read our Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us | About