This is the 4th and final blog in a multi-part blog discussing various critical requirements that can serve as the road map to allow a lawyer to fulfill his/her duty of technological competence. [Click here to read Part 1, here to read Part 2, and here to read Part 3].
You have assessed the discovery needs of your matter, implemented
Continue Reading A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part 4
In a recent decision out of Oklahoma (Curtis v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., No. CIV-17-1076-C [W.D. Okla. June 13, 2018]), District Judge Robin J. Cauthron ruled that non-party ESI subpoenaed pursuant to Rule 45 was not subject to the 100 mile-limitation found in the Rule. Specifically, the Court held there is “no violation of the 100-mile limitation,” as
Continue Reading Rule 45’s Geographic Restrictions Do Not Apply to the Production of Electronically Stored Information
In this single-plaintiff employment discrimination case (Bailey v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93093 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017)), counsel for the parties purportedly met and conferred as directed by the Court and, thereafter, entered into an ESI agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement was presented to the Court and represented to be the product of mutual negotiation.
Continue Reading Because the Court Concluded Plaintiff’s Counsel Failed to Engage in Meaningful Meet and Confer, Court Orders Counsel (not the Plaintiff) to Bear the Costs of Production
In In Re State Farm Lloyds, (Texas Supreme Court [May 26, 2017] 2017 WL 2323099), the Supreme Court of Texas elaborated on the standard applied to evaluate and resolve production disputes. Specifically, the Court opined (perhaps not surprisingly) that of “the guiding principles informing the exercise of discretion over electronic-discovery disputes, proportionality is the polestar.” Id. at *15.
Continue Reading The Seven Commandments of Proportionality in ESI*
It is the beginning of a new year and I thought it the ideal time to list out those steps that are absolutely critical when an attorney is confronting his/her obligation to produce e-discovery in connection with a litigation. Bear in mind, the below list is not exhaustive and each step is replete with technical and tactical sub-steps and decisions.
In Gardner v. Continental Cas. Co., (2016 WL 155002 [D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2016]), the District Court was called upon to decide two different issues raised by Plaintiffs in a motion to compel. The case itself concerned the long term care insurance coverage for five Connecticut residents for stays at Connecticut Managed Residential Care (“MRC”) facilities. As is
In this case involving a motion to compel, the District Court addressed Defendants’ claim that emails stored on backup tapes were not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden and cost associated with retrieving them. Turning first to the question of “undue
