Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, a prevailing party may have a right to recover certain costs associated with the litigation. Many prevailing parties seek to recoup costs attendant to e-discovery, given the expense associated with collecting, processing and producing electronically stored information (“ESI”). However, most federal courts confronting the issue have determined that e-discovery
A recent federal district court decision, Lawson et al. v Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., US Dist Ct, MD Pa, 1:17-CV-1266, Carlson, J., 2019, reminds litigants of the need to tailor discovery requests for electronically stored information (“ESI”).
Before the Court was plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ production of “all” text
Have you ever been involved in a meet and confer regarding electronically stored information and felt your adversary was speaking a foreign language? Is active machine learning an unfamiliar concept to you? Is BYOD an acronym for who-knows-what?
If you answered yes to any of the above, or if you lack fluency in the language
Anyone reading this blog has likely heard about metadata and its potential role in a litigation (See, “Never Agree to Do Something Your Client Cannot Do;” “The Perils of Self-Collection;” and “A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part 4”). But we must remember that if
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in e-discovery vendors. While having more vendor options to choose from may seem like a good thing, the surge in vendors can make it difficult to differentiate among them, and to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. It is therefore critical that law firms
I am often asked by clients and subscribers to the blog, What is E-discovery? And so, this week’s post is intended to respond to that question.
E-discovery is the abbreviated term for electronic discovery and refers to the process in which electronic data (as compared to paper or object information) is sought, located, secured, reviewed
Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC, v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC, 2015 WL 5719123, (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2015)
In this patent infringement case, M-Tel contested a prior ruling by the District Court, which held that Samsung had not infringed upon patents owned by M-Tel. M-Tel claimed that Samsung was not the prevailing party as both