Key Discovery Points: Do Your Best to Avoid Discovery Shenanigans!
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)
Every week, the Array team reviews the latest news and analysis about the evolving field of eDiscovery to bring you the topics and trends you need to know. This week’s post covers the period of March 30-April 5. Here’s what’s...more
Magistrate Judge Scott Hardy delivers a masterclass on what the meet-and-confer requirement really means in federal litigation—and the serious consequences of failing to cooperate in discovery. In this riveting breakdown of...more
In Wilbert v. Pyramid Healthcare, Inc., 2025 WL 873947 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2025), the court wrote: From the inception of this action, Counsel for the parties could not agree on the scope and methodology for ESI discovery…....more
Welcome to the Emerging Technologies and eDiscovery Disputes: Mock Meet and Confer Conference! Join us online for an interactive session where we simulate a meet and confer conference focusing on emerging technologies and...more
Key Points: The Superior Court of Delaware’s “meet and confer” requirement is mandated by the notice provision articulated in Del. R. Civ. P. Super. Ct. 37(a). The Rule has long been interpreted by counsel to require only an...more
Break the summertime blues with some red-hot eDiscovery case law disputes! Our June 2023 monthly webinar of cases covered by the eDiscovery Today blog discusses six disputes including a case where discovery is “like watching...more
Preparing for the Meet and Confer - Proper preparation and documentation during the Rule 26(f) meet and confer process will greatly improve efficiency in the ediscovery phase of your litigation....more
This past year has brought lots of change, including an amendment to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 30(b)(6) governs the deposition of an organization (e.g., a corporation or a partnership) and...more
Over the last year, requests and productions of native-format documents have featured regularly in ediscovery cases resolved by the courts. These cases have demonstrated how differently litigants—and judges—view the...more
In the hustle and bustle of ediscovery planning, we often focus more on the content of discoverable information than we do on its form. For example, in a hostile-workplace claim, you may know that you want all of the...more
Terramar Retail Centers LLC v. Marion #2-Seaport Trust, C.A. No 12875-VCL (Del. Ch. Dec. 4, 2018) - The Court of Chancery has long demanded that litigants abide by the discovery rules and respect scheduling orders. This is...more
It is well established that courts will support parties electing to use technology assisted review (TAR) to identify responsive documents in discovery. However, TAR methodologies and quality control (QC) measures are still...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 sixth 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
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