Webb v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 2015 WL 317215 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2015).
In this products liability case, both parties objected to the magistrate judge’s orders and disputed the appropriate scope of discovery. The...more
For over a hundred years Americans have enjoyed Josh Billing’s chestnut, “I’d rather not know so much, than to know so much that ain’t so.” For nearly seventy years, American lawyers have known one big thing that ain’t so:...more
An order issued by the court in Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, 2014 WL 6908867, No. 10-cv-446S (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014) provides a valuable lesson to all litigants—failure to cooperate under Rule 26 is no longer just...more
A district court in Michigan has strictly enforced the requirement of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that expert witness reports be prepared by the expert witness, and not by counsel. Numatics, Inc. v....more
There can be little debate that electronically stored information (“ESI”) has altered the landscape of discovery in civil litigation. The number of devices that transmit or store electronic data as well as the volume of data...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
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
In this patent infringement action, the defendants, Hangzhou Langhong Technology Co., Ltd. and Langhong Technology USA Inc., moved to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's experts on infringement and damages. The district...more
It is not unusual for opposing counsel to demand that you “certify” that your client’s document production is complete and correct. What does this mean? Are you required to do it?
The issue often arises in...more
The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules recently approved amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing, among other things, eDiscovery. Although some of the Advisory Committee’s proposed revisions lessen the...more
The Amendments to Rule 26 -
In 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was amended to provide new limitations on the discovery allowed for testifying experts in federal court cases. The most significant changes with...more
Proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are set to take effect on December 1, 2015, with significant changes to the scope of discovery and the duty to preserve relevant evidence. The amendments are aimed...more
Orbit Irrigation Products ("Orbit") filed a patent infringement action against Sunhills International ("Sunhills"). After the completion of certain discovery, Sunhills filed a motion to compel. Sunhills contended that Orbit...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently interpreted the work product privilege in a manner favorable to taxpayers, ruling that documents can be prepared “in anticipation of litigation” even if created...more
In this Presentation:
- Summary of Key Changes in Rule 26
- FRCP 26(a)(2)- Disclosure
- Rule 26(b)(4) Trial Preparation: Experts
- Checklist of Suggested Practices
- Excerpt from Summary of...more
In re Biomet, 2013 WL 1729682 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013).
In this behemoth multidistrict litigation, the defendants used key word search to cull 19.5 million documents prior to leveraging predictive coding....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
Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Scheib, 2013 WL 485846 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013).
In this discovery dispute, the defendants objected to the plaintiff’s additional requests for production of an estimated 219 gigabytes of ESI,...more
Back to Top