Amended Rules Five Months Later: Early Trends in Case Law and What It Means
Proposed FRCP Changes: Effect on eDiscovery, RIM & IG (CLE)
Proportionality: Why Considering Value of Case Is Important in Discovery—Judge Baylson
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
With 2018 at a close, it is a great time to look back on the most year’s most influential eDiscovery cases. This four-part series will cover the biggest themes found in case law, starting with scope and proportionality....more
More than three years after their implementation, attorneys, courts, and litigants are still learning to navigate the new waters in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. ...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
On February 13, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a user's "private" Facebook messages and photos are subject to disclosure where that information is "reasonably calculated to contain evidence...more
This case presents an example of a district court’s use of the “proportionality” requirement of Rule 26 to limit overbroad discovery. On March 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major of the District Court for the Southern...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
An Illinois appellate court has vacated a trial court’s order compelling the forensic imaging of several personal computers used by plaintiff, applying a balancing test that takes into account both the proportionality rule...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 July 25, 2016), U.S. District Judge James L. Robart sanctioned a defense lawyer who “inexcusabl[y]” relied on outdated case law and pre-2015 amendments to...more
Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S, 2016 WL 7208753 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016) - In this case, pending before the Court was a motion by Armstrong Pump Inc. (“Armstrong”) to compel formal production of certain...more