- eLessons Learned
- Press and Publicity
- About Our Team
- Contact eLL Blog
Welcome to the new eLessons Learned
eLessons Learned features insightful content authored primarily by law students from throughout the country. The posts are written to appeal to a broad spectrum of readers, including those with little eDiscovery knowledge.
Each blog post: (a) identifies cases that address technology mishaps; (b) exposes the specific conduct that caused a problem; (c) explains how and why the conduct was improper; and (d) offers suggestions on how to learn from these mistakes and prevent similar ones from reoccurring.
Visit our signature feature, e-Discovery Origins: Zubulake, designed to give readers a primer on the e-discovery movement through blog posts about the Zubulake series of court opinions which helped form the foundation for e-discovery. Go There
Interested students may apply for the opportunity to write for e-Lessons Learned by filling out the simple application. Go There
Everyone enjoys their privacy, even legislators! Privacy bills are becoming ubiquitous in state legislatures across the country. With the increased use of social media in and around the workplace, states are legislating to protect the dueling interests of employers and employees. Ten states, including New Jersey, passed laws that restrict employers from accessing the social media accounts of employees.Continue Reading
Discovery rules are very important in litigation, but in specific circumstances they do not apply. A reporter has the right and discretion to keep information private that was given to them in confidence. The court decision in Hatfill took this privilege very seriously and did not allow the plaintiff access to the privileged information.Continue Reading
The scope of relevant discovery for social networking sites (SNS) is like Goldilocks – it can’t be too broad or too narrow, it has to be just right for the courts to allow it. This is especially true when the case involves emotional and mental health claims.Continue Reading
From a layman’s standpoint, suing a corporation can seem grueling. Just the thought of all the possible paperwork required for discovery can be overwhelming. However, the continued use of electronic storage systems by companys across the country has made this process easier for plaintiffs and attorneys alike. As of December 1, 2006, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to give greater guidance to courts and litigants in dealing with electronic discovery issues.Continue Reading
The case at issue is between a mortgage lender and their monocline insurer. While the facts of the actual case are neither relevant nor conducive to bite-sized blog posts, the case nonetheless offers important takeaways in the area of eDiscovery and cost shifting. In this case, a majority of the discovery requests between the parties were shot down because they were overly broad. The court took the position that it is the job of the parties, not the court, to narrow and alter discovery requests. While the court did decide each of the traditional discovery issues (mostly striking them down for being overly broad), it also spoke separately about the Defendant’s protective order. The Defendant had requested a protective order for cost-shifting. In laymen’s speech that translates to the Defendants asking that the requesting party pay the cost for the eDiscovery requests. The Defendants relied upon cases holding that the party seeking discovery should bear the costs. These cases held that in New York, under the CPLR, the party seeking discovery usually pays. However, the cases relied upon have since been chipped away. Previous courts dealing with similar issues have distinguished that when dealing with eDiscovery, previous rules do not account for deleted electronically stored information. The amount of eDiscovery material that may be relevant is tremendous. Therefore, a cost allocation would only be warranted in these circumstances. When the material is readily available, there is no reason to deviate from the general rule that each party bears its own costs. At this point in the litigation there are no eDiscovery issues that would require looking into information that would not be readily available. The Defendants failed to persuade the court that the requesting party should bear the costs of discovery and therefore their motion was denied. Chrissy Caputo is a current Seton Hall University School of Law student. She can be contacted at Christine.email@example.com.
In 2011, Heraeus Kulzer, a German company, sued Biomet, Inc. in German court for theft of trade secrets. Heraeus claimed that it provided intimate trade secrets and confidential information to Merck, its distributor. However, in 1998 Merck and Biomet entered a joint venture and Heraeus now claims that Biomet has utilized Heraeus’ trade secrets in order to create a new bone cement product. As one of the leading producer’s of bone cement, Heraeus sought to take discovery going back at least as far as the formation of the joint venture between Biomet and Merck.Continue Reading
Jane Doe sues Norwalk Community College (NCC) and its Board for sanctions resulting from a sexual harassment suit against a former professor. Doe moved to compel the inspection of certain electronic records possessed by NCC. Plaintiff hired DataTrack Resources, LLC, a forensic computer firm, to inspect NCC's computer records. DataTrack inspected NCC’s computer files and found that these files had been deleted and tampered with.Continue Reading
What Randi Glazer’s psychics didn’t foresee was the compelled production of their predications. If they could, maybe they would have told her to keep them out of her employee inbox.Continue Reading
Litigation involving minors and schools can always be a difficult situation for all parties, and issues of confidentiality will often arise. In order to help the judicial system function effectively, blanket protective orders will often be necessary, but judges must also make sure that they are not harming the plaintiff by issuing these orders.Continue Reading
The issue in this case involves a dispute arising out of the Plaintiff’s failure to produce information, namely bookkeeping data, in a readable format. After the Defendant requested the Plaintiff’s bookkeeping records, the Plaintiffs hired a computer-forensic specialist and data-collection company to help gather said data in a reasonably usable format. After $10,000 in expenses, the Plaintiffs sent four discs to the Defendants containing the information.Continue Reading