Tag Archives: litigation

E-Discovery and Cryptocurrencies – What you need to know

Does bitcoin keep appearing in your news feed? As cryptocurrencies become adopted and accepted by mainstream vendors and consumers, it’s a good idea for attorneys to think about the potential litigation and eDiscovery challenges ahead. While U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchanges are subject to Bank Secrecy laws and anti-money laundering provisions, regulation and enforcement still lag, leaving … Continue Reading

Preservation by Backup Tape – Your First Five Questions . . .

This is the inaugural post in Discovery Advocate’s new series, “Your First Five Questions,” in which we identify a question commonly (or sometimes not so commonly) seen in practice followed by the first five questions you might ask and why. Have a scenario you’d like us to address? Contact us. Your new client, a Fortune … Continue Reading

Human or Technology Assisted: Imperfect Review Can Still be Defensible (SDNY)

It’s a common refrain that, while courts have allowed the use of technology assisted review, no court has yet blessed the outcome of an imperfect technology assisted review process over the objection of another party.  But dicta in Judge Denise Cote’s recent decision in FHFA v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc. (SDNY) (“HSBC“) gets darn close. HSBC is one of a number of … Continue Reading

Nothing Goes Better with Race Tires than . . . Wine?! – Fourth Circuit Limits Taxable eDiscovery Costs

As we’ve discussed multiple times (see here, here, and here), the issue of what types of ediscovery costs are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 was first addressed by a federal appellate court last spring in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.  The Third Circuit – in line with the Supreme Court’s … Continue Reading

Is “double-deletion” of e-mail evidence of conspiracy, spoliation, or legitimate activity?

The recent e-book price fixing lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against Apple and individual book publishers includes allegations that the publishers recognized the “illicit nature” of their communications because they “took steps to conceal their communications with one another, including instructions to ‘double delete’ email…” Conspiracy allegations aside, DOJ’s cloak-and-dagger allegations belie … Continue Reading
LexBlog