The Honorable Shira Scheindlin once opined against allowing custodians of ESI to collect their data stating “[s]earching for an answer on Google (or Westlaw or Lexis) is very different from searching for all responsive documents in the FOIA or e-discovery context…” and “most custodians cannot be ‘trusted’” to effectuate a legally sufficient collection. National Day
Aldinger v. Alden State Bank is a good reminder of counsel’s obligation to be cooperative in the discovery process.
Aldinger, an employment discrimination case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, involved a series of discovery disputes including Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to respond to her First
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
Yikes! No practitioner wants to be on the receiving end of a decision that starts with the title of this post. And yet, that’s precisely how Magistrate Judge Bloom started her decision in Abbott Laboratories v. Adelphia Supply USA (15 cv 5826 [CBA] [LB]), ECF No. 1545 . Abbott serves as an important reminder to
Technology has revolutionized, among other things, the way people conduct business, store information and communicate with others. And, despite the many efficiencies and benefits of technology, a downside of this “revolution” is the creation of countless files that may later be subject to review and potential production during litigation /investigation proceedings. Indeed, even relatively small
Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls upon courts and litigants to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” And so, it comes as no surprise that technology assisted review (“TAR”) is being widely embraced by the legal profession.
What is TAR?
TAR (also called predictive coding,
Often viewed as a necessary evil, the Rule 26(f) conference can serve as an invaluable opportunity to meaningfully discuss discovery such that the process is streamlined and seeks to avoid unnecessary (and often costly) disputes. Generally speaking, Rule 26(f), among other things, sets the deadline for the conference as soon as practicable and at least
For a long time, New York state and federal courts were out of sync with one another with regard to a litigant’s discovery obligations. For example, the state courts in New York required a party to take steps to preserve discovery materials upon the commencement of a litigation, while the federal courts required preservation upon
After sitting on the sidelines for years, the New York Court of Appeals (the highest appellate court in New York) has finally ruled on the standard to be applied to claims alleging spoliation of ESI. The decision, however, which was late in coming, places New York at odds with the new Federal Rules of Civil
In a previous post we discussed generally the idea of a cooperative discovery process and highlighted how the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules embrace this principal (see, e.g., proposed amendments to Federal Rule Civil Procedure [“FRCP”] 1). Here, we discuss how the concept of a cooperative discovery process– even apart from the specific