Here’s a good article entitled “Where Were You During the Social Media Boom?” by Greg Spizer in The Legal Intelligencer.

Statistics show that social media are booming. Facebook’s website indicates that it has 400 million active users; MySpace’s online press report from earlier this year says it has 100 million active users (this number has been disputed somewhat, but it is still in the millions); and a recent news article in PCWorld said that in January of this year, Twitter had 75 million visitors. Individuals, celebrities, corporations, nonprofit organizations, political campaigns, media outlets, associations, societies, movements, and others are all using social media to communicate, and their messages are being heard.

The social media websites are influencing serious as well as the not-so-serious issues. By example, they are credited with greatly contributing to President Obama’s 2008 victory, as well as with helping 88-year old Betty White to host “Saturday Night Live” after a Facebook group generated more than a half a million followers in support of her appearance. Lawyers must acknowledge social media’s importance.

• On the legal process outsourcing front, Integreon signs a record deal with CMS Cameron McKenna, and Pangea3 opens up an office in London.
• Wendy Akbar blogs about Wisconsin.
• What happens when you mix oil and water? How about a pile of lawsuits and e-discovery issues.
• The EDRM turns six.
• kCura officially loves iDiscover Global.
• Lastly, eigh Jones writes of a new federal program designed to make parties in the pre-trial phase be nice to one another during e-discovery.

From Electronic Discovery Law:

In re A&M Fla. Props. II, LLC, 2010 WL 1418861 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010)

Where plaintiff’s counsel “failed in his obligation to locate and produce all relevant documents in a timely manner” by failing to gain a sufficient understanding of plaintiff’s computer systems resulting in significantly delayed production of relevant documents, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions or an adverse inference but ordered monetary sanctions against plaintiff and counsel in an amount to be determined.

Upon plaintiff’s production of requested discovery, defendant was surprised by the lack of internal emails produced.  Thereafter, plaintiff retained new counsel who, in an effort to settle the issue, ordered plaintiff to perform a “company-wide” search for responsive information.  The search was conducted under the direction of Deborah Garfinkle, plaintiff’s Chief Technology Officer.  Unfortunately, counsel was “uninformed on the detailed workings of [plaintiff’s] computer system and email retention policies.”  Specifically, counsel was unaware of the existence of archive folders to which employees regularly moved emails.  The archive folders were therefore not searched.

Eventually, defendant brought the lack of email production to the court’s attention.  The parties thereafter agreed to jointly retain a forensic expert to search plaintiff’s computer system.  Because plaintiff’s counsel remained unaware of the archive folders, the forensic search did not include them.  When certain emails were not found in the forensic search, defendant suspected intentional spoliation.

Electronic Discovery Law – Court Orders Monetary Sanctions for Production Delay Resulting from Counsel’s Failure to Become Familiar with Plaintiff’s Retention Policies and Systems

From The Consumerist:

More than 100 lawyers from all around the country packed into a San Diego courtroom yesterday in an attempt to stake their claim to the lion’s share of any settlements that come from the multitude of federal lawsuits filed against Toyota in recent weeks.

Since Toyota announced the recall of more than 8 million vehicles, around 140 lawsuits have been filed in federal courts. But as those suits become consolidated and streamlined, it becomes increasingly important — at least to the plaintiffs’ lawyers — just where those cases will be heard.

Attorneys based in whichever of the 19 judicial jurisdictions gets the case stand a better chance of being selected to lead the litigation, and therefore stand to earn some major money.

Thus, you get the zoo that appeared before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation yesterday. To make things move along as quickly as possible, each district had to decide which attorney or attorneys would plead their case during the allotted two minutes before the panel.

It was a scene the Wall Street Journal likened to speed-dating

The Consumerist – Lawyers Begin Scrambling For Position In Toyota Lawsuits

You have to check out this post from Tom O’Connor on his docNative Paradigm blog.    Tom covers the Gucci Amer., Inc. v. Curveal Fashion case, 2010 WL 808639.  Basically, Gucci wanted documents produced from Curveal’s bank in Malaysia, United Overseas Bank’s New York Agency (UOB NY). UOB NY was not a party to the underlying action, and plus Malaysia had a privacy statute that would have prevented production.

The court held in favor of the plaintiff by citing a 5 part test which is laid down in the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States.  Check out Tom’s blog to find out with factor was “of the greatest importance in determining whether to defer to the foreign jurisdiction.”