BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)... *Liability and Data Breach Sold Separately
It is your lucky day!! A subpoena comes in the mail and makes its way to your desk. The subpoena comes from a creditor involved in a lawsuit with one of your employees and demands that you produce copies of your employee’s...more
In a pending False Claims Act (“FCA”) case stemming from alleged violations of the physician self-referral law (the “Stark Law”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), 42 U.S.C. §1320a-7b, the...more
A federal district court has denied that part of an insured’s motion seeking to compel the insurer to produce all documents relating to its reinsurance coverage. The court ordered the production of the reinsurance agreements...more
On October 16, a California district court issued a declaratory judgment ordering a company to comply with Rule 34 as cited in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure....more
A recent order issued by M.J. Paul Grewal in Venture Corp. Ltd., et al. v. Barrett, No. 5:13-cv-03384, 2014 WL 5305575 (N.D. Cal. October 16, 2014) provides a useful reminder for all litigators: “Rule 34 (Producing Documents,...more
Dell moved to compel the production of certain internal counsel communications at the plaintiff, MLR. MLR had refused to produce the documents, claiming work product protection.
As explained by the district court,...more
Two disturbing cases for different, but similar reasons.
When did parties jump from collection and culling of documents to simply turning over all possible evidence blindly and relying on a claw back agreement to...more
Every four years, the Summer Olympic Games crowns the winners of the 100-meter dash and dubs them the fastest man and woman in the world. Currently, the world record for the men’s event is 9.58 seconds, while the women’s...more
U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the Northern District of California recently issued an order in Venture Corp., Ltd. v. Barrett shedding light on the meaning of two Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing document...more
Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 2014 WL 4745933 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014).
In this intellectual property case, the plaintiff sought to recover around $1.5 million in costs for producing documents to an online hosted...more
Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, 2014 WL 4547039 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 12, 2014).
In this securities fraud case, the plaintiff sought the production of search efficiency reports that were part of an investigation by third...more
Effective September 2, 2014, the New York Supreme Court implemented a major change to the Commercial Division rules governing privilege logs submitted during the course of litigation. (See New York Supreme Court,...more
In a partially-published opinion filed September 29, 2014, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed an order and judgment permitting the County of San Diego to recover actual labor costs incurred for an attorney and...more
Tax controversies often involve voluminous document production and extensive privilege logs from multiple parties. The privilege issues can be complex and involve advice from multiple advisers potentially covering several...more
Plaintiff Dri-Steem Corporation ("Dri-Steem") sought production of documents in the possession and control of the defendant's parent company National Environmental Products, Ltd. ("National"), via its wholly-owned subsidiary...more
It’s no secret to employers that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken a more provocative and confrontational approach to investigating and litigating claims of employment discrimination. But the EEOC’s...more
In the recent case McGillivary v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 ONSC 865, Master Muir granted the plaintiffs’ Rule 30.10 documentary production motion with regards to evidence obtained by the non-party Special...more
The Delaware Supreme Court recently held that, in certain circumstances, shareholders may be able to obtain access to privileged, internal documents in order to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty. In Wal-Mart...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
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
Before I get to the topic at hand, allow me a brief rant. Can anyone explain how the phrase “any and all documents” (typically used in Rule 34 request for documents) covers any document not covered by a a request for “all...more
Defendant Ablexis requested that the court compel the production of documents associated with the prosecution of non-U.S. patent applications related to the patent-in-suit. The court said that a defendant’s statement that the...more
Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown’s recent order permitting predictive coding in Bridgestone Americas v. International Business Machines Corporation has received a lot of attention because it allowed the use of predictive coding...more
The sanctions recently levied against Foot Locker serve as a potent reminder that understanding data and document preservation requirements is imperative. A New York federal judge issued sanctions against Foot Locker last...more
On June 27, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in In re: Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., an important ruling which confirms the application of the attorney-client...more
Back to Top