Though there has been significant price compression in the market over the last several years, the ever increasing volumes of corporate data during that time have seen the costs of e-discovery continuing to rise, while many...more
Policy Committees Driving Activity -
While the current surface transportation authorization, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), is due to expire on September 30th, the Department of Transportation...more
In Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Insurance Co. the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District decided an interesting case under California’s cost shifting provision, Code of Civil Procedure Section 998....more
Cooperation, proportionality and efficiency. Oh my!
One of the first lessons we are taught as a child is how to share. Unfortunately, for decades, the opposite has been drilled into litigation professionals. Judicial...more
On July 23, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel in First Financial Bank v. Bauknecht, an action based on alleged wrongful conduct by Scott...more
In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC, F.3d 736 (3rd Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit broke from other courts by holding that S corporation status (or "qualified subchapter S subsidiary" or "QSub" status)...more
Efforts to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took another step forward last week. On June 3, 2013, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (“the Standing Committee”) approved a package of proposals...more
On March 16, the most significant provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) came into force. The AIA was seen as the most extensive alteration to patent law in half a century, and was hotly debated over nearly a decade. The...more
In Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co. Inc., the California Supreme Court decided a unique issue under California’s offer of judgment procedure, Code of Civil Procedure Section 998. The court concluded that a second...more
A supplier who has had to respond to discovery requests that seek electronically stored information (“ESI”) knows there is a general presumption that the responding party bears the expense of complying with the discovery...more
W Holding Co., Inc. v. Chartis Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 2013 WL 1352426 (D.P.R. Apr., 3, 2013).
In this discovery dispute, the plaintiffs sought cost taxation of ediscovery costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or cost-shifting...more
Country Vintner of NC, LLC v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, Inc., No. 12-2074 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2013).
In this case brought under the North Carolina Wine Distribution Agreements Act, the defendant submitted a bill of over...more
Phillips v. WellPoint, Inc., 2013 WL 2147560 (S.D. Ill. May 16, 2013).
In this taxation dispute, the defendants submitted $83,642.83 in costs for recovery under U.S.C. § 1920(4), alleging that costs from two ediscovery...more
As we’ve discussed multiple times, 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...more
Juster Acquisition Co., LLC v. N. Hudson Sewerage Auth., 2013 WL 541972 (D.N.J. Feb. 11, 2013).
In this case, the defendant motioned for a protective order with regard to sixty-seven allegedly overboard search terms...more
As children, we’re taught the importance of fair play. As adults, we often learn that “fairness” is a rather amorphous concept. In litigation specifically, what’s “fair” tends to vary greatly by context, circumstance, and the...more
On February 28, 2012, Justice Acosta of the First Department, Appellate Division, adopted the federal Zubulake standard to determine which party is responsible for the cost of searching for, retrieving, and producing...more
In United States v Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against Blue Cross alleging violations of federal antitrust laws. The DOJ issued non-party subpoenas to two hospitals...more
In what could be a significant opinion for federal class action defendants seeking to limit their e-discovery costs, a court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held in Boeynaems v. LA Fitness International, LLC,...more
Back to Top