Consulting an Attorney Did Not Trigger the Duty to Preserve
In Li v. Merck & Co., Inc., the court held that consulting an attorney to understand one’s rights does not necessarily mean litigation was anticipated, delaying the duty to preserve.
Tag e-Discovery
Read MoreConsulting an Attorney Did Not Trigger the Duty to Preserve
EDRM and California Lawyers Association (CLA) Announce Partnership
EDRM and the California Lawyers Association (CLA) have partnered to provide CLA members with access to e-discovery resources, education, and best practices, enhancing legal professionals’ expertise in managing electronic evidence.
Request to Appoint Neutral Forensic Expert Denied as Speculative and Unsupported
In Rivera v. Costco, the court denied a request for a neutral forensic expert, finding the claim speculative and unsupported. The ruling emphasized that courts should be cautious when ordering forensic investigations without credible evidence of misconduct.
Tailor FRE 502(d) Orders to the Case
FRE 502(d) orders are essential tools in modern litigation, offering protections for privileged information. Discover how tailored provisions can balance efficiency and fairness.
It is Important to Understand an E-Discovery Vendor’s Contract
The Supreme Court of Alabama emphasized the importance of understanding vendor contracts in Digital Forensics Corporation, LLC v. King Machine, Inc. The case showcases how arbitration clauses can impact litigation and highlights key considerations for selecting e-discovery providers.
Court Appointed a Special Master to Negotiate ESI Protocol
In UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, the court appointed Hon. James C. Francis (ret.) as a Special Master to mediate ESI Protocol disputes, facilitate settlement efforts, and expedite the case. This decision highlights the growing reliance on court-appointed neutrals for efficient e-discovery management.
November’s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
November's notable e-discovery cases featured rulings on TAR protocols, search term validation, proportionality in custodian designations, and privacy in forensic evaluations. Learn how these decisions impact litigation strategies.
Celebrating 10 Years of E-Discovery Day!
December 5, 2024, marks the 10th anniversary of E-Discovery Day! Participate in engaging webinars, connect with industry leaders, and celebrate with peers at nationwide happy hours.
Does Every “Hit” on a “Hit Report” Have to be Produced?
Courts often allow parties to review documents for relevance before production, even when a document is flagged in a "hit report." This article discusses the legal nuances of hit report relevance in discovery, including how parties can refine search protocols to ensure proportionality and avoid overproduction.
Exterro Expands Leadership Team to Accelerate Growth in the Data Risk Management Market
Exterro announces the addition of Jim Cox as Chief Revenue Officer and John Vincenzo as Chief Marketing Officer to strengthen its leadership team. These appointments are part of Exterro's strategy to accelerate data risk management market growth and expand its partner ecosystem.
Court-Ordered Production of a “Destruction/Unavailable” Log
In Leprino Foods Co. v. Avani Outpatient Surgical Center, the court compelled the production of a "destruction/unavailable" log. This decision raises questions about the necessity and practicality of such logs in discovery and the need for clear rules-based authority to request them.
October’s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
October 2024 saw significant court rulings on e-discovery issues, including spoliation sanctions for lost text messages, search term disputes in antitrust litigation, and privilege claim procedures under Rule 26(b)(5)(B).