The current amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and, in particular, those that address the practice of civil discovery—are the product of five years of development, debate, and, of course, dialogue. Now that the Rules are set to be implemented on December 1, 2015 – and they apply to pending cases where “just and practicable” — … Continue Reading
The current amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and, in particular, those that address the practice of civil discovery—are the product of five years of development, debate, and, of course, dialogue. Now that the Rules are set to be implemented on December 1, 2015 – and they apply to pending cases where “just and practicable” — … Continue Reading
The current amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and, in particular, those that address the practice of civil discovery—are the product of five years of development, debate, and, of course, dialogue. Now that the Rules are set to be implemented on December 1, 2015 – and they apply to pending cases where “just and practicable” — … Continue Reading
The current amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and, in particular, those that address the practice of civil discovery—are the product of five years of development, debate, and, of course, dialogue. Now that the Rules are set to be implemented on December 1, 2015 – and they apply to pending cases where “just and practicable” — … Continue Reading
The current amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and, in particular, those that address the practice of civil discovery—are the product of five years of development, debate, and, of course, dialogue. Now that the Rules are set to be implemented on December 1, 2015 – and they apply to pending cases where “just and practicable” — … Continue Reading
This post is a joint submission with BakerHostetler Data Privacy Monitor blog. On a snowy Sixth Avenue this week, thousands of people packed the New York Hilton Midtown for the sensory overload that is LegalTech New York (#LTNY), the annual E-Discovery, privacy, and information governance bash. And today, just hours after the massive conference closed, … Continue Reading
We like our litigation to be decided on the merits. Sanctions motions based on unsupported claims of spoliation create expensive sideshows that distract from the merits. And sometimes — although perhaps not frequently enough — baseless and abusive motions are punished. Recently, in Smith v. Westchester County Dept. of Corrections, No. 07-CIV-1803 (SDNY), Judge Shira A. Scheindlin … Continue Reading
Will a challenge to the use of predictive coding or technology-assisted review (TAR) disguised as a recusal fight capture the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court? Probably not. Recently, the Da Silva Moore plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari on the narrow question of the standard of review for a recusal decision. And we all know … Continue Reading