The Discovery Update March 2017

/
20Mar2017

The Discovery Update March 2017

  • Sheila Atkinson-Baker
  • 1 Tags
  • Comments

From the President

To assist with your efficiency, here are the features of our online Client Center:

• Secure, centralized, fast online scheduling
• Shows all jobs that are current, those that were cancelled, your entire history, and future calendar
• Limit the information to a particular case, key witness, or attorney, and get the specifics on any deposition
• Review calendar anywhere, anytime
• View or download transcripts and exhibits in seconds
• Extremely easy and convenient to change, cancel, or reschedule jobs any time

 For more information about the Client Center and how it can save you time, take a tour.  Then contact us so we can provide you with a secure login ID and password.  Our goal is to provide you with tools that will help you in your practice. 

Best regards,
Sheila Atkinson-Baker

Threat of Destruction Justifying Third Party Preservation of ESI

By Josh Gilliland

Companies have a strong interest in making sure proprietary information does not go to competitors. Warning signs are employees who email confidential information to their personal accounts and then delete the sent email from their work email account. The following is one such case where third party email providers were ordered to preserve email created by the Defendants to avoid the destruction of relevant ESI.

United States District Judge Edward Davila addressed the duty to preserve in a case where two employees allegedly misappropriated confidential information. Parties [at the latest] have a duty to preserve evidence when a complaint is filed. OOO Brunswick Rail Mgmt. v. Sultanov, No. 5:17-cv-00017-EJD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2343, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017), citing Echostar Satellite LLC v. Freetech, Inc., No. C-07-06124 JW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131412, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009).

Read Full Article

Court Rules that Proportionality and Cooperation are Essential in Resolving E-Discovery Disputes

By Tony McGrath and Brett M. Anders

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen agreed with UPS that it did not have to spend six months and $120,000 to recover data stored on backup tapes that may not be relevant to the case if UPS prevails in its efforts to limit the scope of the putative class’s claims.  Instead, the Court directed the parties to share information and agree upon an appropriate methodology for statistical sampling.

In Solo v. United Parcel Services Co., No. 14-12719, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS ______ (E.D. Mich. January 10, 2017) a putative class of shipping customers alleged that UPS breached its shipping contracts by repeatedly overcharging for shipments with a declared value of more than $300.  Plaintiffs made what they likely believed to be a reasonable request – how many packages with a declared value of more than $300 were shipped within the several years covered by Plaintiffs’ claims?

Read Full Article

side1

THREAT OF DESTRUCTION JUSTIFYING THIRD PARTY PRESERVATION OF ESI

CITING “DIMINISHING RETURNS,” COURT DECLINES TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

5 WAYS EDISCOVERY WILL CHANGE THINGS IN 2017

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND E-DISCOVERY SOLUTIONS

WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

The Fourth Generation of eDiscovery Offerings is Upon Us

What is Contextual Diversity and Why is it Important in TAR?

side2

Citing “Diminishing Returns,” Court Declines to Compel Additional Discovery Read it»

FiveWays eDiscovery Will Change Things in 2017Read it »

side3

Information Management and E-Discovery Solutions
Read it »

E-Discovery: 8 Questions to Ask When Selecting a Review Tool
Read it »

side4

HEAD SCRATCHER

I pass before the sun, yet make no shadow.

What am I?

Email us the right answer and you could be randomly drawn as the winner of a $25 gift card!

Last month’s answer