1 MOCK MEET AND CONFER AND RULE 16(B) CONFERENCE: WHO IS AT THE TABLE AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN COUNSEL CAN T AGREE? ASK THE JUDGE!
2 The Honorable Ronald J. Hedges Principal, Ronald J. Hedges LLC Ronald J. Hedges is the principal of Ronald J. Hedges LLC. He has extensive experience in e-discovery and in the management of complex litigation and has served as a special master, arbitrator and mediator. He also consults on management and discovery of electronically stored information ( ESI ). Mr. Hedges was a United States Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey from 1986 to While a magistrate judge, he was the Compliance Judge for the Court Mediation Program, a member of the Lawyers Advisory Committee, and both a member of, and reporter for, the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Committee. From 2001 to 2005 he was a member of the Advisory Group of Magistrate Judges. Mr. Hedges was an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School, where he taught mediation skills. He was an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and remains an adjunct professor at Rutgers School of Law Newark. He taught courses on electronic discovery and evidence at both these schools. He was a Fellow at the Center for Information Technology of Princeton University for and Mr. Hedges is also a member of the College of the State Bar of Texas. Mr. Hedges is admitted to the bars of the District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York and Texas. He is also admitted to the bars of various federal courts.
3 Mr. Hedges many publications include The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation: Resources for the Judiciary (coeditor) (three editions) (The Sedona Conference: 2014, 2012 & 2011), Managing Discovery of Electronic Information; A Pocket Guide for Judges (co-author) (second and first editions) (Federal Judicial Center: 2012 & 2007), Discovery of Electronically Stored Information: Surveying the Legal Landscape (author) (BNA: 2007), The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Addressing Protective Orders, Confidentiality & Public Access in Civil Cases (The Sedona Conference: 2007) (editing team member), Case Management and E-Discovery: Perfect Together, DDEE (July 1, 2009), Rule 26(f): The Most Important E- Discovery Rule, New Jersey Law Journal (May 18, 2009), and A View from the Bench and the Trenches: A Critical Appraisal of Some Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 227 F.R.D. 123 (2005). Among other things, Mr. Hedges is a member of the American Law Institute, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association. He is a member of the Historical Society and the Lawyers Advisory Committee of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Hedges is a member of The Sedona Conference Advisory Board, The Sedona Conference Working Group on Protective Orders, Confidentiality, and Public Access, and The Sedona Conference Working Group on Best Practices for Electronic Document Retention & Production. He is also a member of the advisory board of the Advanced E-Discovery Institute of Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Hedges may be reached at and
4 Dawson Horn Associate General Counsel, Vice President at AIG Mr. Horn is an experienced attorney with a corporate in house and law firm background. He is well versed in a range of litigation matters including product liability, mass torts, ediscovery, RICO, insurance, franchise, antitrust and procurement/contracting. He also has a significant transactional background as he has lead acquisitions and divestitures.
5 Phillip J. Duffy, Esq. Director, E-Discovery Task Force, Gibbons P.C. Phillip J. Duffy is a member of the Gibbons Products Liability Department and a founding member of the firm s E-Discovery Task Force. As a Task Force member, Mr. Duffy frequently advises clients, publishes, and lectures on information governance, legal hold, and e-discovery and records management best practices. He is a member of the Defense Research Institute s (DRI) Electronic Discovery Committee, where he has served as Annual Meeting Liaison and Membership Chair. In his role in the Products Liability Department, Mr. Duffy has defended clinical laboratories and healthcare providers in medical negligence matters involving the disciplines of cytology, pathology and cytogenetics, as well as general laboratory testing in the areas of chemistry, hematology, and toxicology for nearly two decades. He has been recognized among New Jersey s leading lawyers in the area of medical malpractice defense litigation by New Jersey Super Lawyers and is a frequent speaker on medico-legal risk management issues, having delivered live presentations to clinicians and laboratory professionals in almost every state. Education Seton Hall University Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1992) Editorial Board Member, Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal Rutgers College (B.A., 1989)
6 Gail L. Gottehrer Partner, Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP Gail's practice focuses on class action litigation, labor and employment litigation and other complex commercial matters. She is one of the few defense lawyers to have been involved in the trial of a class action to verdict before a jury. As an experienced commercial litigator, Gail recognizes the significant and widespread effects technology has on business operations, employeeemployer relationships and the practice of law. By understanding and leveraging technology, she assists her clients in maximizing the opportunities and facing the challenges created by advances in technology. Gail is a member of the Board of Directors of the Greater Hartford Legal Aid Foundation and the Director of the Connecticut Chapter of Women in ediscovery. She is a member of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production and the drafting team selected to update The Sedona Conference Commentary on Legal Holds. Gail is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a former Law Clerk to the Honorable Murray C. Goldman, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.
7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f): Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery.
8 (1) Conference Timing. Except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).
9 (2) Conference Content; Parties Responsibilities: In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person.
10 (3) Discovery Plan. A discovery plan must state the parties views and proposals on: (A) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made; (B) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues;
11 (C) any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced; (D) any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including -if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production - whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order;
12 (E) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed; and (F) any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).
13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f): Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
14 (b) Scheduling. (1) Scheduling Order. Except in categories of actions exempted by local rule, the district judge or a magistrate judge when authorized by local rule must issue a scheduling order: (A) after receiving the parties report under Rule 26(f); or (B) after consulting with the parties attorneys and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference or by telephone, mail, or other means.
15 (2) Time to Issue. The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but in any event within the earlier of 120 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 90 days after any defendant has appeared.
16 (3) Contents of the Order. (A) Required Contents. The scheduling order must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions. (B) Permitted Contents. The scheduling order may: (i) modify the timing of disclosures under Rules 26(a) and 26(e)(1); (ii) modify the extent of discovery; (iii) provide for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information; (iv) include any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material after information is produced; (v) set dates for pretrial conferences and for trial; and (vi) include other appropriate matters..
17 (4) Modifying a Schedule. A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.
18 Federal Rule of Evidence 502: Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver
19 The following provisions apply, in the circumstances set out, to disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorneyclient privilege or work-product protection. (a) Disclosure Made in a Federal Proceeding or to a Federal Office or Agency; Scope of a Waiver. When the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding only if: (1) the waiver is intentional; (2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.
20 (b) Inadvertent Disclosure. When made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state proceeding if: (1) the disclosure is inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).
21 (c) Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding. When the disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not a waiver under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred.
22 (d) Controlling Effect of a Court Order. A federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.
23 (e) Controlling Effect of a Party Agreement. An agreement on the effect of disclosure in a federal proceeding is binding only on the parties to the agreement, unless it is incorporated into a court order.
24 (f) Controlling Effect of this Rule. Notwithstanding Rules 101 and 1101, this rule applies to state proceedings and to federal court-annexed and federal court-mandated arbitration proceedings, in the circumstances set out in the rule. And notwithstanding Rule 501, this rule applies even if state law provides the rule of decision.
25 (g) Definitions. In this rule: (1) attorney-client privilege means the protection that applicable law provides for confidential attorney-client communications; and (2) work-product protection means the protection that applicable law provides for tangible material (or its intangible equivalent) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.
26 Rule 34. Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things. (a) In General. A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b): (1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party s possession, custody, or control: (A) any designated documents or electronically stored information-- including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations--stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form;
27 (b) Procedure. (1) Contents of the Request. The request: (A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected; (B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection and for performing the related acts; and (C) may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.
28 (D) Responding to a Request for Production of Electronically Stored Information. The response may state an objection to a requested form for producing electronically stored information. If the responding party objects to a requested form--or if no form was specified in the request--the party must state the form or forms it intends to use.
29 (E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information: (i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request; (ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and (iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
30 Facts: 2008: Hone v. BIPI, No cv-1002 (M.D. Fla.) - Lawsuit on behalf of who died while on Pradaxa and participating in the RE-LY Clinical Trial filed and litigation hold put in place February 2009: Hone v. BIPI, No cv 1002 (M.D. Fla.) LITIGATION HOLD LIFTED
31 January 8, 2010: Academic Health Professionals Insurance Association v. BIPI, No (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cnty.) FILED Seeking indemnification for malpractice suit arising out of the RECOVER clinical trial In the underlying case, administrators of the RECOVER trial were accused of malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent in relation to a deceased patient Later determined that the patient did not take Pradaxa
32 October 2010: Fourth Quarter 2010: First Quarter 2011: August 12, 2011: September 2011: October 2011: Pradaxa approved by the FDA FDA receives adverse event reports involving Pradaxa FDA receives adverse event reports involving Pradaxa Japanese regulators issue warning about potentially fatal bleeding in some Pradaxa patients New Zealand Investigation into Pradaxa Deaths Various Internet discussions regarding Adverse Event Reports related to Pradaxa and plaintiffs pharmaceutical blogs relating to serious bleeds associated with Pradaxa
33 November 2, 2011: Boehringer reports 50 bleeding related deaths November 16, 2011: Blog states that Boehringer now reports that there have actually been 260 bleeding related deaths November 21, 2011: Academic Health Litigation Hold LIFTED February 1, 2012: Demand Letter re: first Pradaxa post-launch product liability case February 15, 2012: Litigation Hold Issued in relation to Feb. 1, 2012 Demand Letter March 2012: First post-launch product liability case filed
34 Please feel free to contact us with any questions Ronald J. Hedges Phillip J. Duffy Dawson Horn Gail Gottehrer
What s New in the World of ediscovery Case Law? What You Don t Know Could Get You Sanctioned Gail Gottehrer Michael Landau September 23, 2014 Gail L. Gottehrer Partner, Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP Gail
Friday 31st October, 2008. It is ordered that the Rules heretofore adopted and promulgated by this Court and now in effect be and they hereby are amended to become effective January 1, 2009. Amend Rules
Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys By Ronald S. Allen, Esq. As technology has evolved, the federal courts have
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA ORDER NO. 1682 Amending Civil Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45 concerning Discovery of Electronic Information IT IS ORDERED: 1. Civil Rule 16 is amended to read
A PENNSYLVANIA LLP STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY 301 Carnegie Center Third Floor Princeton, NJ 08540 609.750.2646 fax 609.897.7286 firstname.lastname@example.org Practice Concentration Stephen Orlofsky is the administrative
1 2013 E-DISCOVERY AMENDMENTS TO THE MASSACHUSETTS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BOSTON E-DISCOVERY SUMMIT 2013 DECEMBER 3, 2013 CONTEXT 2006 FEDERAL COURT E-DISCOVERY AMENDMENTS The 2006 Federal E-Discovery
Turning the Tide The Need for E-Discovery Education Hon. David J. Waxse, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Kansas Ralph C. Losey, Esq., Partner and National e-discovery Counsel, Jackson Lewis LLP Rhea
ESI: Federal Court An introduction to the new federal rules governing discovery of electronically stored information In September 2005, the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously approved
I. Synopsis WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL LIABILITY & PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSOR STEVEN M. PAVSNER SYLLABUS The objective of the seminar, Medical Liability and Public Health, is to
HONORABLE JOSEPH P. SPINOLA New York Joseph P. Spinola is a former Justice of the New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County. He gained a reputation as an eminently qualified and even-handed jurist, who
125 In-House Solutions to the E-Discovery Conundrum Retta A. Miller Carl C. Butzer Jackson Walker L.L.P. April 21, 2007 www.pointmm.com I. OVERVIEW OF THE RULES GOVERNING ELECTRONICALLY- STORED INFORMATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE TENNESSEE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Filed: June 20, 2008 ORDER The Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice & Procedure annually
Effective Protocols for Reducing Electronic Discovery Costs New Jersey Corporate Counsel Association September 21, 2012 Judge Patty Shwartz James Anelli Brian Halpin William Belt William Johnson Overview
Phone: 310.557.2009 Fax: 310.551.0283 Email: email@example.com Parry Cameron has over twenty-three years experience in commercial and business litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. He
Federal Rule Changes Affecting E-Discovery Are Almost Here - Are You Ready This Time? An Overview of the Rules, History and Commentary Absent congressional action to reject, modify or defer proposed amendments
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN SURETY COUNSEL REPRESENTING PRINCIPAL IN PRINCIPAL S AFFIRMATIVE CLAIM AND SURETY COUNSEL SEEKING TO RECOVER A FIDELITY LOSS FROM A THIRD PARTY INVOLVING AN INSURED S SUBSTANTIAL
ROBERT J. BRASS, Esq. ALOIA LAW FIRM LLC 2 Broad Street, Suite 407 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 (973)337-6626 firstname.lastname@example.org RESUME ADMITTED TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE BAR OF THE UNITED
Supreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions (a) Discovery Methods. Information is obtainable as provided in these rules through any of the following discovery methods: depositions upon oral examination
COURSE DESCRIPTION AND SYLLABUS LITIGATING IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT (994-001) Professors:Mark Austrian Christopher Racich Fall 2014 Introduction The ubiquitous use of computers, the
Discovery and deposition practice in federal court Key differences between federal practice and California practice BY BRIAN J. MALLOY Federal law governs procedural matters for cases that are in federal
Mary H. Spillane Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101 Office: (206) 628-6656 Fax: (206) 628-6611 Email: email@example.com Mary Spillane, a member in the Seattle
CARL E. FORSBERG Shareholder Main Phone: 206.689.8500 Direct Line: 206.689.8552 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org PRACTICE EMPHASIS AND EXPERIENCE Insurance Coverage and Analysis Environmental Coverage
Curriculum Vitae ABRAHAM J. GAFNI EDUCATION: Harvard Law School, J.D., 1963 Yeshiva University, B.A., B.H.L., 1960 Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1958-59 ADMITTED TO PRACTICE State of New York, 1963 Commonwealth
ETHICS & THE NEW RULES THOMAS H. WATKINS, Austin Brown McCarroll LLP State Bar of Texas 19 th ANNUAL TEXAS MINORITY COUNSEL PROGRAM September 7-9, 2011 Austin, Texas CHAPTER 15 Thomas Watkins Brown McCarroll,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE In the Matter of a ) Uniform Pretrial Order ) ) Administrative Order 3AO-03-04 (Amended) UNIFORM PRETRIAL ORDER In order
RÉSUMÉ OF JEFFREY D. WOOLF Office: Board of Bar Overseers 99 High Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 728-8709 e-mail: email@example.com EDUCATION: J.D. Boston University School of Law, 1974. Ph.D. Candidate,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO.: 16- DIVISION: CV- vs. Plaintiff, Defendant. ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING
Thomas O. Gorman Porter Wright Morris and Arthur firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: 202-778-3004 Fax: 202-778-3063 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20006-3434 Career Highlights Mr.
Ethics and Social Media Joseph Zavaglia, Jr., Esq. Michael Sullivan, Esq. NJ PARALEGAL CONVENTION NJ Paralegal Convention October 24, 2014 Presenters: Provider: Michael K. Sullivan, Esq. (email@example.com)
www.goldbergsegalla.com NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA CONNECTICUT NEW JERSEY UNITED KINGDOM Litigating the Products Liability Case: Discovery New York State Bar Association Buffalo, NY October 22, 2013 Presenter
BOOK RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact: Michael Arkfeld Law Partner Publishing, LLC Ph: 602.993.1937 May, 3, 2010 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Arkfeld on Electronic Discovery and Evidence:
The Top Ten List (and one) of Changes to the Federal Rules The List (1) The rules now refer to electronically stored information, which is on equal footing with paper. Rules 26(a)(1), 26(b)(2), 26(b)(5)(B),
Robert Bond email@example.com Alexander Carter-Silk firstname.lastname@example.org IP, Technology & Data Group E-Discovery and EU Data Protection laws Alex Carter-Silk, Partner, IP, Technology
A Timely Analysis of Legal Developments A S A P In This Issue: July 2009 On June 30, 2009 California became the 22nd state to enact separate rules that specifically address electronic discovery. The new
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN The following provisions apply to civil cases filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana that are not exempt from filing
465 California Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Main: (415) 397-2222 Direct: (415) 438-4534 email@example.com Summary of Qualifications Joe McMonigle is honored by membership in the four
DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION IN STATE COURT: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COURT S RULES DON T HELP Presented by Frank H. Gassler, Esq. Written by Jeffrey M. James, Esq. Over the last few years,
UNIFORM COLLABORATIVE LAW ACT S.B. 714: ANALYSIS AS ENACTED Senate Bill 714 (as enacted) PUBLIC ACT 159 of 2014 Sponsor: Senator Tonya Schuitmaker Senate Committee: Judiciary House Committee: Judiciary
If you have been sued as a defendant in a civil case...keep reading. Court procedures can be complex. This brochure was developed to help Ohioans who are considering representing themselves in court. It
Kenneth B. Walton Partner, Chair, Employment Practices Group Member, Executive Committee firstname.lastname@example.org 617-406-4524 direct 617-406-4501 fax Experience Kenneth B. Walton is a Founding Partner
COMING: NEW FEDERAL RULES ON E-DISCOVERY By: M. Sean Fosmire Garan Lucow Miller, P.C. Executive Summary Now that e-filing is up and running, the federal courts have moved on to e-discovery and have adopted
Franchise Tax Board ANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL BILL Author: Evans Analyst: Deborah Barrett Bill Number: AB 5 See Legislative Related Bills: History Telephone: 845-4301 Introduced Date: December 1, 2008 Attorney:
Book Review THE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND DISCOVERY HANDBOOK: FORMS, CHECKLISTS, AND GUIDELINES by Sharon D. Nelson, Bruce A. Olson and John W. Simek American Bar Association 2006 745 pp. Reviewed by William
Section 2 Day Forward Major Jury Program 1 DAY FORWARD/MAJOR JURY PROGRAM The Day Forward/Major Jury Program encompasses all Major Civil Jury cases except Commerce and Mass Tort cases. Day Forward Case
RICHEL RIVERS Rivers McNamara, PLLC 1209 West Fifth Street, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78703 (512) 439-7000 email@example.com EDUCATION University of Texas School of Law (J.D. 1976) Trinity University
JOHN E. KEEFE, SR. OF COUNSEL Keefe Bartels 170 Monmouth Street Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 telephone: 732-224-9400 facsimile: 732-224-9494 firstname.lastname@example.org EDUCATION: 1962 B.S., Rutgers University,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY TRIAL DIVISION General Court Regulation No. 2013-01 Notice to the Mass Tort Bar Amended Protocols and Year-End Report
A BNA, INC. DIGITAL DISCOVERY & E-EVIDENCE! VOL. 7, NO. 11 232-235 REPORT NOVEMBER 1, 2007 Reproduced with permission from Digital Discovery & e-evidence, Vol. 7, No. 11, 11/01/2007, pp. 232-235. Copyright
Robert A. Bauerschmidt graduated cum laude from The University of Illinois College of Law in May, 1990 and received his Bachelor of Arts Degree from The University of Michigan in May, 1987. In 1990, he
2012 2012 Annual Report Fulton County Superior Court 1 Governing Rules On June 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Georgia promulgated Atlanta Judicial Circuit Rule 100 governing the procedures of the, as amended
MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Discovery Managing Discovery Of Electronically Stored Information Under Proposed Amendments To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure by Michael C. Lynch and Lystra Batchoo Kelley
ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT Mark J. Oberti Oberti Sullivan LLP 723 Main Street, Suite 340 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 401-3556 email@example.com Edwin Sullivan Oberti Sullivan LLP 723 Main
JAMIE L. SHELLER SHELLER, P.C. 1528 Walnut Street, Fourth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 790-7300 EDUCATION: Villanova University School of Law Villanova, PA J.D., May 1989 Contributing writer to The
Litigation Hold Procedures Definitions Electronically Stored Information (ESI) - Any information stored electronically, including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images,
CHAPTER 50 AN ACT concerning family collaborative law and supplementing Title 2A of the New Jersey Statutes. BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey: C.2A:23D-1 Short
BENJAMIN L. HALL, III THE HALL LAW FIRM 530 Lovett Blvd. Houston, Texas 77006 EDUCATION J.D. Ph.D. M.Div. B.A. HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, Cambridge, MA June 1986, Merrill Griswold Scholar DUKE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE
RICHARD L. MURRAY, JR. Hall & Evans, LLC 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado CO 80202 firstname.lastname@example.org (303) 628-3300 (d) (303) 628-3378 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 2010 to Present: 1980
PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN Dykema Cox Smith 112 East Pecan, Suite 1800 San Antonio, TX 78205 Phone (210) 554-5594 email@example.com OVERVIEW Phylis J. Speedlin counsels clients in two primary areas: alternative
Regents of the University of Colorado, The v. Allergan, Inc. et al Doc. 69 Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01562-MSK-NYW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
Case4:12-cv-03288-KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION STANDING ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE KANDIS A. WESTMORE (Revised
Scott O Halloran 1301 A Street, Suite 900 Tacoma, Washington 98402-4200 Office: (253) 552-4094 Fax: (253) 593-5625 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Scott O Halloran is a member in the Tacoma office
THE IMPACT OF THE ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY RULES ON THE EEOC PROCESS Cynthia L. Gibson, Esq. Katz, Teller, Brant & Hild 255 East Fifth Street Suite 2400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-3418 email@example.com
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC11-1542 IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY. PER CURIAM. [July 5, 2012] The Florida Bar s Civil Procedure Rules Committee (Committee)
William Mitchell E-Discovery Symposium Outlaw v. Willow Oral Argument Motions for Sanctions Mary T. Novacheck, Esq. Partner Bowman and Brooke LLP Outlaw's Motion: Cost Shift Vendor Fees to Willow Prior
30 N LaSalle Street Suite 1524 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 262 6700 Facsimile: (312) 262 6710 Attorneys at Law THE FIRM With over 40 years of combined litigation experience, Adria Mossing and Jim
SAMPLING: MAKING ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY MORE COST EFFECTIVE Milton Luoma Metropolitan State University 700 East Seventh Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55337 651 793-1246 (fax) 651 793-1481 Milt.Luoma@metrostate.edu
E-Discovery: New to California 1 Patrick O Donnell and Martin Dean 2 Introduction The New Electronic Discovery Act The new Electronic Discovery Act, Assembly Bill 5 (Evans), has modernized California law
california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with
Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document103-7 Filed05/15/14 Page1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Leonard B. Simon (State Bar No. 58310) firstname.lastname@example.org LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego,
JACK WENIK member of the firm co-chair of the health care government investigations practice group SPECIALTY: AREAS OF EMPHASIS Health Care Fraud Internal Investigations Doctor Disciplinary Proceedings
MICHAEL A. LANDRUM, J.D. AMERICORD, INC. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SERVICES AN AFFILIATE OF LANDRUM DOBBINS LLC 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 952.893.2300 Cell: 612.868.8730 Fax: 952.446.1386 email@example.com
March 17, 2013 CURRICULUM VITAE OF BONNIE BLUME GOLDSAMT THE LAW & MEDIATION OFFICES OF BONNIE BLUME GOLDSAMT, MA, JD, APM One University Plaza, Suite 14 25 Pompton Avenue, Suite 101 Hackensack, New Jersey
José Ramón González-Magaz firstname.lastname@example.org E-Discovery Best Practices www.steptoe.com November 10, 2010 Importance of E-Discovery 92% of all data is ESI. Source: Berkeley Study. 97 billion e-mails
Personal Injury Litigation The Anatomy of a New York Personal Injury Lawsuit An ebook by Stuart DiMartini, Esq. 1325 Sixth Avenue, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10019 212-5181532 dimartinilaw.com Introduction
The Rules have Changed The management of electronic research records is more important than ever before Michael H Elliott Published in Scientific Computing May 2007 A patent provides rights to an inventor
Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court 38(d) (d) Clinical Law Professors and Law Students 1. Purpose. This rule is adopted to encourage law schools to provide clinical instruction of varying kinds and to facilitate
November 2006 New E-Discovery Rules: Is Your Company Prepared? By Maureen O Neill, Kirby Behre and Anne Nergaard On December 1, 2006, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( FRCP ) concerning
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP