eDiscovery Case Law Podcast: How Failing to Meet and Confer Effectively Can Lead to Sanctions
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 286: Listen and Learn -- Conclusory Pleadings Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Civ Pro)
Direct Examination: To Lead or Not to Lead
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 416: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 224: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
The Only Rule of Multidistrict Litigation Is...
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Practicing Before the U.S. Supreme Court | Kannon Shanmugam | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Amended Rules Five Months Later: Early Trends in Case Law and What It Means
Proposed FRCP Changes: Effect on eDiscovery, RIM & IG (CLE)
In Wenzler v. U.S. Coast Guard, 2025 WL 1445805 (Mar. 20, 2025), Wenzler alleged that he had been disenrolled from the voluntary U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary based on his speech on social media. Wenzler unsuccessfully asserted...more
Does your bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policy quietly wall-off the best evidence in your next case? A March 17, 2025 Special-Master ruling in Allergan, Inc. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc. says it might—denying a motion to...more
In Abrego-Garcia v. Noem, __ F.R.D. ___, 2025 WL 1166402 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2025)(Xinis, J.), plaintiffs notified the Court of “seemingly intractable discovery disputes….” The case is before the District Court after the United...more
In Pincus Law Grp PLLC v. MJ Connections, Inc., 2025 WL 1070384 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2025), the court ruled in favor of a discovering party and ordered reproduction of previously-produced documents under the terms of an ESI...more
Recent amendments to the federal rules governing pretrial discovery encourage courts to be more aggressive in squelching wasteful discovery practices. Litigators should be mindful that judges are increasingly taking the rules...more
If you’ve been around the ediscovery space long enough, you’ve likely heard the term “drive-by meet and confer.” It’s what happens when counsel shows up to a Rule 26(f) conference unprepared, without the necessary knowledge...more
Litigation adversaries often trigger privilege and work product disputes when they seek each other’s documents. But what if your client’s adversary subpoenas a third party holding your client’s privileged documents — whose...more
[Editor’s Note: This article was first published September 25, 2024, 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...more
[Editor’s Note: This article was first published April 17, 2024 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 the...more
That is what makes the recent decision in M1 Holdings, Inc. v. Members 1st Fed. Credit Union, 2024 WL 182220 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2024), interesting. Both of the disputing litigants were ordered to state under oath that they...more
This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. an order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granting a motion to compel...more
In Buergofol GmbH v. Omega Liner Company, Inc., 4-22-cv-04112 (DSD Jul. 13, 2023) (Karen E. Schreier), the court granted the defendant’s motion to compel and awarded monetary sanctions after the plaintiff failed to respond at...more
Under Massachusetts procedure, a party has the right to compel an opponent to disclose its testifying expert’s opinions through interrogatories. But unlike federal procedure, a party under Massachusetts procedure must obtain...more
As if subpoena practice is not expensive and time-consuming already, there are times in which even a subpoena will not suffice to obtain a third-party’s records. Federal statutes may create confidentiality issues, or a state...more
In our digital world, one might think that the production format of electronically stored information, or ESI, in civil litigation is no longer controversial, but recent court decisions make it clear that is not the case. ...more
I know that you haven’t heard from me in a while. I’m sorry, and I feel guilty. ......I’m not ready to abdicate my position as the original NC Business Court blogger, so I’m back at it again. My reentry point is the...more
Maybe some of you will look at the title of this article, smirk, and dismissively mutter that there is nothing new about text messages. eDiscovery practitioners also may think there is nothing revolutionary about considering...more
As discussed in a previous blog post, an interested party in a foreign or international proceeding may apply to a United States District Court for discovery from an individual or corporation who resides or is found in the...more
In Youngevity Intl’s Corp. v. Smith (No: 16-cv-00704 [SD CA December 21, 2017]), defendants sought an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) and 37. The Order required Plaintiffs to remediate an improper...more
In Fulton v. Livingston Financial LLC, 2016 WL 3976558 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016), U.S. District Judge James L. Robart sanctioned a defense lawyer who “inexcusabl[y]” relied on outdated case law and pre-2015 amendments to...more
Bass, Berry & Sims Chris Lazarini analyzed a case outlining when a party is entitled to have a jury decide issues related to the making or enforceability of an arbitration agreement. ...more
After seemingly endless years of rulemaking, the first decisions applying the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have begun to trickle out. Not surprisingly, there have been no game changers to date, but early signs...more
As noted in our December e-discovery update, the much-discussed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective December 1, 2015. One of the most notable amendments was the limitation on the scope of...more
Magistrate Judge Grewal has denied a motion to compel discovery because the requests were “disproportionate,” alluding to the requirement in newly amended Rule 26(b)(1), F.R.Civ.P., that the discovery sought should be...more