Anticipation of Litigation Advisor

Should the Jury Decide "Intent to Deprive" in Spoliation Sanction Issues? <Em>Woods v. Scissons</Em> Says Yes.

September 24, 2019

On June 25, 2016, Officer Scissons arrested Dustin Woods after a brief pursuit and a confrontation, during which Woods attempted to pull a gun on the officer. Officer Scissons successfully disarmed Woods and handcuffed him, and other officers began to arrive on the scene. After the incident, Woods filed a § 1983 action against Officer Scissons alleging that Scissons struck Woods several times…

Anticipation of Litigation Advisor

September 24, 2019

Should the Jury Decide "Intent to Deprive" in Spoliation Sanction Issues? Woods v. Scissons Says Yes.

On June 25, 2016, Officer Scissons arrested Dustin Woods after a brief pursuit and a confrontation, during which Woods attempted to pull a gun on the officer. Officer Scissons successfully disarmed Woods and handcuffed him, and other officers began to arrive on the scene. After the incident, Woods…

5+ Tips for Managing E-Discovery Costs for a Small Case

September 24, 2019

Most cases are not multi-national corporation against multi-national corporation.  Most cases do not have tens of millions of dollars at issue.  Most clients do not have giant e-discovery budgets.  In fact, most cases in litigation today are significantly smaller, generally with just thousands of dollars at issue, and cannot withstand a giant e-discovery bill.  So, what are the lawyer and client to…

Third Circuit Highlights the Importance of E-Discovery Expert in a Civil Action Disrupted by Spoliation

August 27, 2019

On July 10, 2019, in GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,[1] the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted a motion for a new trial based upon the lower court’s refusal to allow the testimony of an electronic discovery expert regarding the significance of the opposing party’s spoliation of electronically stored information (“ESI”).[2]  This decision indicates the importance of…

A Cautionary Tale About the Importance of Staying on Top of Emails <EM>Madison v. United States Dept. of Labor</EM> 924 F.3D 941 (7th CIR. May 24, 2019)

August 27, 2019

After Mary was fired from her warehousing job at Mars, Inc. in 2013, she filed a complaint with OSHA claiming she was fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle on food safety issues.  After an investigation, the OSHA investigator dismissed her complaint in February 2016.
 
Mary’s lawyer then asked for a review by the Labor Department’s Administrative Review Board (the “Board”).  Mars…

Anticipation of Litigation Advisor

August 27, 2019

Third Circuit Highlights the Importance of E-Discovery Expert in a Civil Action Disrupted by Spoliation

On July 10, 2019, in GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,[1] the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted a motion for a new trial based upon the lower court’s refusal to allow the testimony of an electronic discovery expert regarding the significance of the opposing party’s…

Beyond litigation: The use of e-discovery tools in the transactional practice

July 24, 2019

The discovery phase of litigation often results in the need to process enormous quantities of electronic data. This has resulted in the development of powerful e-discovery platforms and tools to assist companies and their legal counsel in processing this information, resulting in significant efficiencies and costs savings. Although such investment was originally driven by the needs of litigators…

Anticipation of Litigation Advisor

July 24, 2019

Beyond litigation: The use of e-discovery tools in the transactional practice

The discovery phase of litigation often results in the need to process enormous quantities of electronic data. This has resulted in the development of powerful e-discovery platforms and tools to assist companies and their legal counsel in processing this information, resulting in significant efficiencies and costs…

Ensuring your e-discovery service arrangement is HIPAA-compliant

July 24, 2019

In today’s fast-paced and technologically advanced world, parties involved in litigation require efficiency and efficacy in the realm of discovery. To this end, many parties involved in litigation contract with third-party vendors for the provision of e-discovery services. Before any information is shared with an e-discovery vendor, a disclosing party must determine whether it is subject to the…

Anticipation of Litigation Advisor

June 26, 2019

Are eDiscovery Costs Still Recoverable after the Supreme Court’s
decision in Rimini Street, Inc. et al. v. Oracle USA, Inc.?

A circuit split has existed for some time on whether eDiscovery costs are recoverable by a prevailing party.  Generally, litigants rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1920 to seek recovery of eDiscovery costs.  Specifically, litigants often point to section 1920(4), under which a court…

"I'm Only Human"

June 26, 2019

Attorneys are limited in the number of documents they can review and identify per day in a large discovery production. Luckily, technology-assisted review (“TAR”) is a useful tool to expedite review time when humans cannot handle it all. When set up correctly, TAR can return more accurate and complete results than any human review team, and can do it much faster. This is good news because we’re…

Are eDiscovery Costs Still Recoverable after the Supreme Court's decision in Rimi Street, Inc. et al. v. Oracle USA, Inc.?

June 26, 2019

A circuit split has existed for some time on whether eDiscovery costs are recoverable by a prevailing party.  Generally, litigants rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1920 to seek recovery of eDiscovery costs.  Specifically, litigants often point to section 1920(4), under which a court may award “fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for…