To their credit, experienced litigators are able to resolve the vast majority of pretrial discovery disputes without the need for court intervention. This is particularly true when the dispute in question is whether a...more
In US Dominion, Inc. v. Byrne, 2024 WL 3792654 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2024), violations of protective orders led to disqualification of counsel. The court began its decision by stating: “This case arises out of the 2020 U.S....more
At a hearing in mid-March, the Delaware bankruptcy court held Camshaft Capital Fund, LP, Camshaft Capital Advisors, LLC, Camshaft Capital Management (collectively, “Camshaft”) and William Cameron Morton, principal of...more
[Editor’s Note: This article was first published December 21, 2023 and EDRM is grateful to Tom Paskowitz and Robert Keeling of our Trusted Partner, Sidley, for permission to republish. The opinions and positions are those of...more
In a 2-1 opinion,1 the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin finding Defendant Leader Accessories LLC (“Leader”) and its attorney, Mr....more
As in the Michigan state court system, most of your time in a federal civil case will be spent on discovery, and most of your interaction with the court will be through motion practice. Different courts have different rules...more
On October 24, 2019, Judge Charles T. Lee of the Connecticut Superior Court granted a motion to strike claims alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) in connection...more
Deciding whether mobile devices should be imaged can be difficult when it comes to eDiscovery. They contain a large variety of file-types and data intermingled with a lot of private information, which may be privileged....more
On May 15, 2019, Judge Charles T. Lee of the Connecticut Superior Court at Stamford granted a protective order staying discovery pending a motion to strike in an action alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the...more
Earlier this month, a federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Lois Bloom, issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the ultimate sanction of default judgment be entered against certain...more
In a recent multi-district case involving patent infringement allegations relating to MRI imaging, Judge Stearns granted motions for protective orders directed to untimely-served subpoenas on third party customers. The case...more
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled on several discovery motions in a reinsurance dispute between R&Q Reinsurance Company (“R&Q”) and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) over underlying...more
The seventh edition of The E-Discovery Digest focuses on recent decisions addressing the scope and application of the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, spoliation, and discovery responses....more
On June 6, 2017, the First Department had an opportunity to apply—and reaffirm—last month’s decision in Peerenboom v. Marvel Entm’t, LLC, where the Court held that use of a company email system for personal purposes “does...more
If one party in a lawsuit merely identifies documents on a privilege log without detail, does the other party bear the burden of showing that the withheld materials were not privileged, in order get access to those documents?...more
In Polygroup Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a Patent Owner request for documents already provided in a co-pending lawsuit but restricted from use by a protective order....more
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen agreed with UPS that it did not have to spend six months and $120,000 to recover data stored on backup tapes that may not be relevant to the case if UPS prevails in its efforts to limit the...more
We wrote here previously regarding the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Shane Group v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan vacating a class action settlement because the district court improperly refused to unseal the parties’...more