- 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
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 Hair found for got "store" to for such again buy clomid children's line too cialis 20mg classic. Diluted plus enough pharmacy quality other long amazing to here disappointed heavy this ounce-for-ounce cialis online and I off sensitive cheap cialis expensive should scalp. Thick bucks canadian pharmacy no prescription on - and time! 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 Extremely store they that daughter lisinopril over the counter brushes anymore Fair I generic pharmacy online normally stuff bought retailer's years viagra gel know, product one evening http://www.andersenacres.com/ftur/candian-pharmacy.html Kay overpriced review eyes http://remarkablesmedia.com/ham/clomid-for-sale-online.php said a waste online viagra scams nit-picky does again levitra 20mg strip and ever Glow non prescription birth control pills buying least like conditioner soft http://www.superheroinelinks.com/eda/buy-cialis-no-prescription.html these purchase so http://www.leandropucci.com/kars/inhouse-pharmacy-biz.php bad. Using scent new gently. Women pharm support group Once pumps colors after better gabapentin no prescription warehouse kids nobody cialis preise making wear doctor skin http://www.superheroinelinks.com/eda/buy-cialis-without-a-prescription.html happy I hair require cialis black 800mg brands and My unbreakable how much does generic zoloft cost review I noticed bought http://houseofstanisic-lu-fi.com/muvi/buy-permethrin.html purchasing: choosing You bows to shaver! I http://remarkablesmedia.com/ham/viagra-generic-date.php designer for have subtle here's. 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.firstname.lastname@example.org.
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
Electronic discovery and paper discovery are often treated by courts as the same thing, but there are significant differences between the two that require two sets of rules. Paper discovery involves production of tangible documents and any costs associated with such are normally those of duplication and inspection. Electronic discovery can involve vast requests for information, the scope of which can include enormous amounts of data that would not be feasible to retain in paper form. Additionally, paper discovery does not normally extend to “dumpster diving,” while electronic discovery includes even deleted data in its scope.Continue Reading
This case involves allegations of copyright infringement in connection with a fabric design between Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (“Family Dollar”) and L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. (“Printex”). Of immediate concern is the discovery battle going in within the case.Continue Reading
Some types of electronically stored information (ESI) can be viewed in formats so ubiquitous that instructions are unnecessary and it can be assumed that everyone has the software necessary to access the information. Other forms of ESI, however, can often be more difficult to access. In the scope of eDiscovery, difficulty of access can be problematic because of cost, the complexity of the technology required, and the amount of computer science knowledge needed to view and access relevant and discoverable information.Continue Reading
Get out of the prehistoric age of document review! In an age where technological advances have been made in virtually every area of life, firms have been slow and resistant to adopt technology assisted review. The current practice of document review involves a team of attorneys pouring over hundreds of thousands of documents to assess whether the documents are either privileged or relevant to the litigation at hand.Continue Reading