Views from the Bench: A Conversation with the Judiciary
For years, there’s been a popular sentiment that the absence of economies of scale made ediscovery impractical for small law firms, especially those with infrequent cases. While that may have been a legitimate argument in...more
All courts agree that litigants asserting attorney-client privilege or work product protection must establish the protection's applicability. But courts take different positions on whether any presumptions guide their...more
New York CPLR 3122(d) provides that the “reasonable production expenses” incurred by a non-party’s compliance with a subpoena shall be defrayed by the party issuing the subpoena....more
Judges presiding over multidistrict litigation can reduce discovery abuse by requiring litigants to pay for “core document” requests and shifting production costs to plaintiffs who cannot meet some threshold showing of merit....more
The ninth 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
The eighth 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
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
The fourth 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, cost shifting and other e-discovery issues....more
This is the third edition of The E-Discovery Digest, a periodic publication on notable decisions relating to key discovery topics. It is designed to keep clients up to date on the evolving state of the law regarding discovery...more
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect December 1. The rules committee’s objectives behind the amendments were to (1) reduce delay, (2) encourage judges to get more involved, (3) clarify the scope...more