As you all know, I love a good infographic. This one reflects the states that require attorneys to stay abreast of changes in technology relating to law practice. Does your state have a technology competence requirement for its attorneys?
One of the trends that most thought leaders that we interviewed in our annual thought leader interview series this year identified was that the eDiscovery provider market was finally consolidating and the pace of mergers and acquisitions was accelerating. So far this year, that trend is proving true.
In GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark, finding a high degree of fault, bad-faith intent to deprive the plaintiff of responsive documents and prejudice caused to the plaintiff's case, imposed several sanctions against the defendant, including “punitive sanctions in the amount of $3,000,000” for the “intentional and admitted deletion of emails” by the defendant's Senior Vice President of Sales.
OK, I know that’s not how the classic Sister Sledge song goes, but I’m such an eDiscovery geek that every time I think of that song these days, I think of keeping email and attachment families together. One of the most common mistakes that I see clients make is that they forget to account for complete “families” in their email productions, which leads to an incomplete production to opposing counsel.
In United States v. Lambis, New York District Judge William H. Pauley, III granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement agents in connection with a search of his apartment because the apartment was located via the use of a “Stingray” cell-site simulator to identify the location of the defendant’s phone without a warrant.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog