From Ralph Losey’s e-Discovery Team: A new opinion by the Chief Bankruptcy Judge in Manhattan, Arthur J. Gonzalez, illustrates what can happen when lawyers over-delegate to their client the lawyers’ duty to find and collect digital evidence. In re A & M Florida Properties II, LLC, 2010 WL 1418861 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010). This case, [...]
Read the full article »
From Bow Tie Law’s Blog: In the epic legal battle over patents and floppy disk controller defects dating back to the 1980s and 1990s, the Defendants brought a motion to compel the Plaintiff, who was an employee of his own company, who did not regularly testify as an expert on the company’s behalf, to prepare [...]
Read the full article »
From Practical Ediscovery: Irwin v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency, A.T., — N.Y.S.2d —, 2010 WL 462948 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept., Feb. 11, 2010) Petitioner Irwin noticed that a local government agency used a picture of Irwin in an email “news blast.” He claimed the agency used the photo without his permission, and sought modest compensation [...]
Read the full article »
Written on
February 24, 2010 by
Ed Valio
From E-Discovery Bytes: Federal district court judge Shira Scheindlin — who penned five seminal opinions in the case of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg — has weighed in again on a litigant’s duty to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”) relevant to pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. She even titled her opinion, “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later.” In Pension [...]
Read the full article »
Written on
February 12, 2010 by
Ed Valio
From eLaw Exchange via Michael Arkfeld’s Electronic Discovery and Evidence: (D)efendant argued that the plaintiff was responsible for the costs for producing electronic data. In a review of New York law the Court found that the producing party had the obligation to produce ESI and the cost would be borne by the producing party, including the review [...]
Read the full article »
From EDD Update: In a must read decision for attorneys, consultants and ediscovery vendors, the Court in a well-written opinion chastised and awarded attorney fees and costs against the defendant whose IT representative “exaggerated” the cost of processing ESI. Starbucks Corp. v. ADT Sec. Servs.,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120941 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2009). In [...]
Read the full article »