BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)... *Liability and Data Breach Sold Separately
Patent Office Litigation Update: IPR Discovery and Evidentiary PTAB Decisions
Polsinelli Podcast - Social Media at Work - What's Allowed and What Isn't?
[Legal Perspective] When Is It NOT Okay to Delete Your Social Media Account?
When dealing with US requests for data subject to ediscovery rules in Asia, corporate counsel at multinational corporations must be on top of their game. Managing ediscovery in the United States alone presents a significant...more
Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows a Texas trial court to authorize a pre-suit deposition to investigate a potential claim before an actual lawsuit is filed. In In re John Doe a/k/a "Trooper," No. 13-0073,...more
The recent case of Brown v. Tellermate Holdings Ltd. is noteworthy for its imposition of near-terminal evidentiary sanctions, and order directing counsel and defendant to jointly pay plaintiffs’ cost of bringing motions to...more
Traditional e-discovery collection tools are not designed to work with social media, and manual techniques are too time consuming to be workable, as a plaintiff learned in a recent wrongful termination case, Stallings v. City...more
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLC -
Addressing a patent owner’s unauthorized e-mail arguing for additional discovery and the petitioner’s likewise unauthorized responsive e-mail, an...more
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a 5-4 decision holding a plaintiff needs to establish jurisdiction over an anonymous blogger before a court will allow pre-suit discovery that would likely unmask the blogger’s...more
Lawyers must take “appropriate” steps to preserve their clients’ potentially relevant and discoverable social media evidence. That is the key take-away from an ethics opinion recently issued by the Philadelphia Bar...more
Permobil Inc. v. Pridemobility Products Corp. -
Addressing a patent owner's motion to compel a petitioner to produce documents concerning petitioner’s alleged copying in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent...more
In Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. de C.V. v.Honeywell International, Inc., IPR2013-00576, Paper 36 (September 5, 2014), the Board denied patent owner’s request for additional discovery – the deposition of Dr. Takashi Shibanuma,...more
According to PC Magazine, “[i]n the simplest terms, cloud computing means storing and accessing data and programs over the Internet instead of your computer’s hard drive.” Cloud-based computing has become a very popular tool...more
In Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol, Limited, IPR2013-00309, Paper (September 4, 2014), petitioner sought (1) detailed sales records of the products covered and not-covered by the...more
On August 22, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court ordered oral argument in In re: Magnum Hunter Resources Corp., a case concerning the discoverability of third-party trade secrets documents in civil cases. When should such...more
“Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?”
That was the question for thousands of kids in the 80’s and 90’s as they searched the digital globe for the sneakiest villains in the computer game industry. Their goal was to...more
Recently in Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., U.S. Magistrate Judge Joe Brown of the Middle District of Tennessee addressed the plaintiff’s request to use technology-assisted review (TAR) on...more
On August 29, 2014, Judge Bruggink heard oral argument and ruled on plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of documents and information requested from the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) regarding plaintiffs’...more
Bridgestone Americas Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., No. 3:13-1196, 2014 BL 202049 (M.D. Tenn. July 22, 2014).
In this ongoing case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for a $75 million computer system that it claimed...more
August 28, 2014 – The PTAB continues to take a hard line on motions for additional discovery, but shows a willingness to grant some limited additional discovery, as the following four decisions illustrate...more
Hawley v. Mphasis Corp., 2014 WL 3610946 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2014).
In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff moved for sanctions due to defendant’s alleged discovery violations. The plaintiff claimed that...more
On Monday, IMLA filed its brief in Schultz v. Wescom, a petition stage Supreme Court case, which involves a question of whether a municipality/police officer may immediately appeal a decision by a district court to defer the...more
Wis. Res. Prot. Coun. v. Flambeau Mining Co., 2014 WL 3810884 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 1, 2014).
In this environmental case, the plaintiff moved for review of the clerk’s ruling awarding costs to the defendant. In particular,...more
Mazzei v. Money Store, 2014 WL 3610894 (S.D. N.Y. July 21, 2014).
In this class action fraud case, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants failed in their duty to preserve electronic information relevant to...more
As you arrive at the front door of the courthouse of the Alexandria Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“EDVA”), you are met with a sculpture of a blindfolded Lady Justice bearing the...more
With fewer trials and an increasing focus on using the discovery process to leverage a favorable settlement or resolution, it is common for litigation counsel to be obstructionist during discovery. For example, counsel may...more
Most corporate litigants are aware of the meet and confer requirement applicable to discovery disputes. Before a party files a motion seeking discovery that the other side will not provide, courts expect the attorneys for...more
A common concern for business litigants is protecting legitimately confidential matter contained in documents produced during discovery from dissemination to non-parties. The Supreme Court’s decision in Seattle Times Co. v....more
Back to Top