In Lunkenheimer Co. v. Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd., Ohio District Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that the duty to preserve for the defendant (an Australian company with offices and facilities only in Australia) did not begin until the complaint was filed in US courts in December 2011, denying the assertion of the intervenor/counter defendant that the duty to preserve arose in 2002.
When you think of eDiscovery, you typically think of it as it relates to litigation – two sides of a case requesting and producing electronically stored information (ESI) as one means of identifying evidence designed to lead to resolution of a lawsuit. But litigation is just one method for dispute resolution. Another method is arbitration. But, do arbitrators really “get” eDiscovery? Let's see.
Today’s thought leader is Jason R. Baron. An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice. Jason previously served as Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice. He was a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international information retrieval project devoted to evaluating search issues in a legal context. He also founded the international DESI (Discovery of Electronically Stored Information) workshop series, bringing together lawyers and academics to discuss cutting-edge issues in eDiscovery.
Last week, I told you about a two-day program being hosted next week in my hometown of Houston by The Sedona Conference®. Then, on Tuesday, I told you about the Second Annual Electronic Discovery Conference for the Small and Medium Case, hosted by the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida and EDRM also next week. Now, here is another conference alternative for next week – the Third Annual ASU-Arkfeld eDiscovery and Digital Evidence Conference, hosted by Arizona State University and noted eDiscovery expert Michael Arkfeld.
These days, it seems as though every company is outsourcing work overseas. Are corporate legal departments following suit?
In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., District Judge Lucy Koh reduced the amount of the previous jury award against Samsung in its ongoing intellectual property case from nearly $1.05 billion to over $598 million, due to ordering a new trial on damages for several Samsung products that amounted to over $450 million being stricken from the jury’s award.
In Optiver Australia Pty. Ltd. & Anor. v. Tibra Trading Pty. Ltd. & Ors., California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted much of the defendant’s motion to quash subpoena of Google for electronic communications sent or received by certain Gmail accounts allegedly used by employees of the defendant because most of the request violated the terms of the Stored Communications Act.
In Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC, Illinois Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox sanctioned the defendant for a “hands off approach” to discovery by relying on a vendor for conducting the discovery from a closely related non-party to the suit.
When it’s Apple v. Samsung, of course! According to the Huffington Post, Apple Inc. requested a court order for a permanent U.S. sales ban on Samsung Electronics products found to have violated its patents along with additional damages of $707 million on top of the $1.05 billion dollar verdict won by Apple last month, already one of the largest intellectual-property awards on record.
A jury of nine on Friday found that Samsung infringed all but one of the seven patents at issue in a high-stakes court battle between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. The patent that they determined hadn’t infringed was a patent covering the physical design of the iPad. The jurors found all seven of Apple's patents valid—despite Samsung's attempts to have them thrown out. They also determined that Apple didn't violate any of the five patents Samsung asserted in the case.
With data in the world doubling every two years or so and the variety of issues that organizations need to address to manage that data from an eDiscovery standpoint, it would probably surprise none of you that the eDiscovery market is growing. But, do you know how quickly the market is growing? One research firm reports their forecast.
As noted yesterday, LegalTech West Coast 2012 (LTWC) is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show. There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the Los Angeles area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and 69 exhibitors providing information on their products and services, including (shameless plug warning!) my company, CloudNine Discovery, which just announced yesterday release of Version 11 of our linear review application, OnDemand®, and will be exhibiting at booth #216 along with our partners, First Digital Solutions. Come by and say hi!
Eighteen months ago yesterday, eDiscovery Daily was launched. A lot has happened in the industry in eighteen months. We thought we might be crazy to commit to a daily blog each business day. We may be crazy indeed, but we still haven’t missed a business day yet. As we’ve done in the past, we like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time. So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed. Enjoy!
One of our eDiscovery predictions for 2012 was that there would be a continued focus on International eDiscovery. Multinational companies with operations in the United States are often subject both to the US civil procedure discovery rules as well as the privacy laws of the European Union and other countries where they operate. Trying to comply with both sets of rules and laws can be difficult when those rules and laws conflict. To attempt to address those conflicts, Working Group 6 of The Sedona Conference (TSC) has drafted the 2011 Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference® International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure and Data Protection (“International Principles”).
Yesterday, we evaluated what others are saying and noted popular eDiscovery prediction trends for the coming year. It’s interesting to identify common trends among the prognosticators and also the unique predictions as well. But we promised our own predictions for today, so here they are. One of the nice things about writing and editing a daily eDiscovery blog is that it forces you to stay abreast of what’s going on in the industry. Based on the numerous stories we’ve read (many of which we’ve also written about), and in David Letterman “Top 10” fashion, here are our eDiscovery predictions for 2012.
With a nod to Nick Bakay, “It's all so simple when you break things down scientifically.” The late December/early January time frame is always when various people in eDiscovery make their annual predictions as to what trends to expect in the coming year. I know what you’re thinking – “oh no, not another set of eDiscovery predictions!” However, at eDiscovery Daily, we do things a little bit differently. We like to take a look at other predictions and see if we can spot some common trends. Ten sets of predictions in all! Here are the trends.
If 2012 is like recent years, there should be plenty of interesting developments in the eDiscovery industry. However, before we look ahead to the coming year, it’s worthwhile to look back at what transpired in 2011 to see what trends began to emerge last year. And, there is no better way to do that than to review key cases during the year. eDiscovery Daily has published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 50 unique cases! We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts. Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!
An October 3 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offers new clarity in defining and protecting the eDiscovery rights of non-U.S. nationals using U.S. services online, by ruling that emails stored on servers located within the U.S. are protected by national laws on ESI.
Many of you have likely attended at least one LegalTech trade show at some point. LegalTech New York (LTNY) happens every year in the late January/early February time frame and there is also a LegalTech West Coast (LTWC) show later in the year (this year it was in mid-May). LTNY and LTWC usually have several good sessions, as well as the latest product and service offerings from exhibitors. But, what if you can’t make it to one of these shows? You can still stay abreast of the latest trends -- virtually.
A Southern District of New York United States Bankruptcy Court denied access to a debtor's emails on July 22, in a foreign request involving international eDiscovery. In re Toft, No. 11-11049 (ALG), 2011 WL 3023544 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2011), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that to permit a relief request from a German insolvency administrator would directly contravene the "fundamental principles" of U.S. public policy by undermining the right to privacy in electronic communications and the right of parties involved in any court order to receive notice of such proceedings and of their involvement.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog