1 MCGRAW MORRIS P.C. Presented By: Stacy J. Belisle
2 MICHIGAN COURT RULEREGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION ( ESI ) - MCR 2.302(B)(5) AND (6) Electronically Stored Information. A party has the same obligation to preserve electronically stored information as it does for all other types of information. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, goodfaith operation of an electronic information system. Limitation of Discovery of Electronic Materials. A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of MCR 2.302(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
3 HOW TO PROACTIVELY MANAGE DATA When a lawsuit is filed, stay in front of discovery requests and consider the following: How will ESI come into play? How will ESI will be preserved? How will ESI be searched and what limitations will apply? How will ESI be produced?
4 PRESERVATION OBLIGATIONS Under Michigan common law, the duty to preserve arises when a party has notice of the information s relevance to litigation or impending litigation. Unfortunately, notice is often examined in hindsight, and Michigan law provides little, if any, bright-line guidance on when a preservation obligation arises.
5 HOW TO COMPLY Take Precautions to Prevent Discovery and Spoliation Sanctions Issue a Litigation Hold Memorandum/Letter Identify Individuals and Systems with Responsive Information Take Action to Retain Backups Suspend Automatic Deletion
6 EFFORTS TO SEARCH FOR RELEVANT DATA Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Johnson Elec. N. Am., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43753, (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2010) The plaintiff was ordered to supplement its discovery responses to specifically identify sources of ESI which were not reasonably accessible, the reasons for its contention that the ESI is not reasonably accessible without undue cost and effort, and the anticipated costs and efforts involved in retrieving that ESI.
7 SPOLIATION/SANCTIONS Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Orbit One Communications, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 271 F.R.D. 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The obligation to preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation, including instances where suit has not been filed but the party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation. Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998). The determination ot been filed but the party should have of whether sanctions should be imposed for the destruction of evidence ultimately turns on whether relevant information has been lost. Mastr Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2006-OA2 v. UBS Real Estate Securities Inc., No. 12 Civ (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2013).
8 E-DISCOVERY COSTS Fair Housing Center of Southwest Michigan v. Hunt, No. 09-cv-593 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2013). After concluding that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties in a civil rights action alleging housing discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, the court held that the attorney fee request was unreasonable largely because too much time was spent on e-discovery.
9 PROPORTIONALITY The federal court rules require that proportionality of efforts be balanced when ESI, or any discovery, is at issue. The rule states: On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.
10 POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. San Juan Cable LLC, No (D.P.R. Oct. 7, 2013). The court held that the defendant had a duty to preserve relevant s that came from the personal accounts of its former officers because it presumably knew that the officers used their personal accounts to engage in company business. Because some of these s were lost and could not be obtained through other sources, the plaintiff requested sanctions for spoliation. The court denied the plaintiff s request without prejudice because there was no evidence of bad faith or that the lost s would help prove the plaintiff s claims. The court stated, however, that [f]orensic analysis of these three former employees personal accounts and computers may be appropriate to determine whether critical s have been deleted.
11 DISCOVERY OF TEXT MESSAGES ORDERED Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008) Defendants, the City of Detroit and Christine Beatty, among others, filed motions to preclude discovery of communications exchanged among certain officials and employees of the city via city-issued text messaging devices, arguing that the Stored Communications Act ( SCA ) wholly precluded the production in civil litigation of electronic communications stored by a non-party service provider. The court rejected the defendants reading of the SCA as establishing a sweeping prohibition against civil discovery of electronic communications. The defendants position, if accepted, would have dramatically altered discovery practice, in a manner clearly not contemplated by the existing rules or law, by permitting a party to defeat the production of electronically stored information created by that party and still within its control through the simple expedient of storing it with a third party. Because nothing in the plain language of the SCA required that result, and because the defendants did not identify any other support for this proposition, the court held that the discovery effort contemplated in its opinion and related order could go forward, albeit through a means somewhat different from that employed by plaintiff to date.
12 TEXT MESSAGES NOT DISCOVERABLE Elcometer, Inc. v. TQC-USA, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , (E.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2013). In contrast to Flagg, the dispute in this case was over a third party subpoena, as opposed to a discovery request directed to a municipal party. Unlike the present case, the defendant in Flagg was available and responsive, but refused to consent to the production of electronic messages that were stored by a third-party service provider. While the Court found that the information in question was discoverable, it did not permit access to the material by enforcing a third-party subpoena, but directed the plaintiff to serve document requests to the defendant, who was then directed to instruct the third-party service provider to produce the responsive material to the plaintiff.
13 DISCOVERY OF PERSONAL FACEBOOK CONTENT Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387 (E.D. Mich. 2012). The issue before the court was raised in a motion to compel the plaintiff to execute authorizations allowing Facebook to divulge the plaintiff s own personal Facebook content. The lawsuit was over a slip-and-fall injury in which the plaintiff claimed back and other injuries related to an accident at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of her injuries, she was impaired in her ability to work and to enjoy life. The defendant requested that the plaintiff sign authorizations for records from her Facebook account.
14 IMPROPER ACCESS TO FACEBOOK The Stored Communications Act (SCA) regulates when an electronic communication service provider may disclose the contents of, or other information, about a customer s s and other electronic communications to private parties. Congress passed the SCA to prohibit a provider of an electronic communication service from knowingly divulging the contents of any communication while in electronic storage by that service to any person other than the addressee or intended recipient.
15 IMPROPER ACCESS TO FACEBOOK Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp, unpublished opinion per curiam of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Docket No. 2:11-cv (decided August 20, 2013). The judge in this case determined, for the first time, that private Facebook postings an employee posted about her employer are subject to the SCA. This decision could be problematic for employers who take action against employees for private information posted by employees on social media sites.
16 PRIVACY RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 N.J. 300; 990 A.2d 650 (2010). The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision concerning the extent to which employers can monitor and restrict their employees personal use of company computers. In contrast, in Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2011), the court reached a different conclusion. In this case, the plaintiff sent s to her attorney using her work provided computer and using her work . In contrast to the Stengart case, the employer in Holmes had a much more restrictive policy.
17 MICHIGAN S INTERNET PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT In 2012, the Michigan legislature enacted the Internet Privacy Protection Act to address employers attempts to force employees and prospective employees to provide access to social media or passwords to social media.
18 MICHIGAN S INTERNET PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT An employer shall not do any of the following: Request an employee or an applicant for employment to grant access to, allow observation of, or disclose information that allows access to or observation of the employee's or applicant's personal internet account. Discharge, discipline, fail to hire, or otherwise penalize an employee or applicant for employment for failure to grant access to, allow observation of, or disclose information that allows access to or observation of the employee's or applicant's personal internet account.
19 PUBLIC RECORD THE BASICS 1. The record must be a writing. 2. The record must be involved in the performance of an official function of the public body.
20 EXEMPTIONS FOIA EXEMPTIONS ARE CONSTRUED NARROWLY FOIA requires the full disclosure of public records, unless those records are exempted under MCL The exemptions in MCL are narrowly construed, and the burden of proof rests on the party asserting the exemption. If a request for information held by a public body falls within an exemption, the decision becomes discretionary. Kent County Deputy Sheriffs Ass n v. Kent County Sheriff, 463 Mich. 353, ; 616 N.W.2d 677 (2000).
21 DENIALS The request was improperly made. The requested document never existed. The requested document was properly destroyed. The requested document or information is exempt from disclosure.
22 ELECTRONIC RECORDS All electronic records that are created, received or stored by a government agency are the property of the government agency. Records created in the performance of an official function must be managed the same way as those created and received using municipal computer resources. Municipal employees responsibilities for managing electronic records are the same as those for other records. Individual employees are responsible for deleting electronic records in accordance with the appropriate retention and disposal schedule.
23 SUGGESTED FOIA PROCEDURES Personnel Authorized to Process FOIA Requests Retain All FOIA Requests on Paper Determine When A Request Is Received A non-electronic request is received as soon as it is delivered to the township mailing address, post office box, fax machine, address OR ANY township board member, other board/commission member, official, employee, or independent contractor (assessor, building official, zoning administrator, etc.), even if in person or at their home. The month, day, and year should be stamped or written in indelible ink on every nonelectronic FOIA request when it is received. An electronic request is received on the business day following the day the transmission is received on ANY device maintained to receive that form of transmission. Separate Exempt From Non-Exempt Information
24 RECORDS MANAGEMENT FOR FOIA COMPLIANCE Every message, text message and social media post must be evaluated for its content and purpose to determine the length of time it must be retained in accordance with the appropriate retention and disposal schedule. Just like paper records, messages may be evidence of decisions and activities. All FOIA and records retention requirements must be observed for . Both senders and recipients of messages must determine if a particular message should be retained to document their role in agency activities. Pursuant to state records retention schedules, a municipality does not need to keep every document in its possession and certainly does not need to keep every duplicate copy. The law allows municipalities to destroy documents that are not protected from destruction by statute or regulation, or needed for ongoing business purposes.
25 FOUR CATEGORIES OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION Records - recorded information that is prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by an agency in the performance of an official function. Example: After further review, it is our decision that there is not sufficient justification to approve the reallocation for Susan s position, based upon the fact that... Retention: Retain according to agency specific and general schedules.
26 FOUR CATEGORIES OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS Transitory Records - records relating to agency activities that have temporary value and do not need to be retained once their intended purpose has been fulfilled. Example: The staff meetings will be held on Tuesday mornings from now on instead of Thursday afternoons. Retention: Retain for up to 30 days.
27 FOUR CATEGORIES OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS Nonrecords - recorded information in the possession of an agency that is not needed to document the performance of an official function. Example: The American Red Cross Blood Drive will be held in Baker-Olin West on December 20, Retention: Destroy ASAP.
28 FOUR CATEGORIES OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS Personal-records that document non-government business or activities. Example: Honey. My meeting is running later than expected. Please save dinner for me. Thanks. Retention: Do not use government technology resources. Destroy ASAP.
29 RESPONSIBILITIES Employee Responsibilities: Decide which messages to keep and which to destroy as soon as possible; Empty trash bins to purge deleted messages frequently; File the messages that are retained in an organized filing system; and Identify which retention schedule mandates the message s retention or authorizes its destruction. Management Responsibilities: Ensure that retention and disposal schedules are accurate and comprehensive; Adopt and distribute an retention policy for staff; Adopt and distribute an acceptable use/etiquette policy; and Communicate with appropriate employees, attorneys and information technology staff when a FOIA request is received or when litigation appears imminent. Retention Checklist
30 CASE LAW Howell Education Assoc. v. Howell Board of Education Personal s are not public records merely because they were captured in an system s digital memory.
31 STORAGE OPTIONS Live System System Archives Saving Outside the System Paper Printout Microfilm Document Management System
32 RECORD RETENTION POLICY Each municipality should adopt a policy that notifies employees about their responsibilities for retaining official electronic communications and identifies how they should be stored. Management, information technology staff, and attorneys should work together to finalize a policy that addresses technology resources and legal vulnerabilities.
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
What is ediscovery? Electronic discovery ( ediscovery ) is discovery of electronic information in litigation. ediscovery in California is governed generally by the Civil Discovery Act. In 2009, the California
A. Principles For Document Management Policies Arthur Anderson, LLD v. U.S., 544 U.S. 696 (2005) ( Document retention policies, which are created in part to keep certain information from getting into the
1 PROFESSIONALS MILLER CANFIELD LAW FIRM B. Jay Yelton III Michigan's New E-Discovery Rules Provide Ways to Reduce the Scope and Burdens of E-Discovery To a large extent Michigan's new e-discovery rules
UNDERSTANDING E DISCOVERY A PRACTICAL GUIDE 1 What is ESI? Information that exists in a medium that can only be read through the use of computers Examples E-mail Word Documents Databases Spreadsheets Multimedia
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:
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,
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
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
E-DISCOVERY & PRESERVATION OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE Ana Maria Martinez April 14, 2011 This presentation does not present the views of the U.S. Department of Justice. This presentation is not legal advice.
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
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
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
April 3, 2007 NEW RULES FOR ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION SUMMARY: On December 1, 2006, the federal courts enacted new rules to address electronically stored information ( ESI ) such as emails, reports,
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
Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,
Published on Arkansas Judiciary (https://courts.arkansas.gov) Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:
BEST PRACTICES FOR PREPARING YOUR BUSINESS FOR E-DISCOVERY I. Background The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for document production in the discovery process. Until recently, all types of documents
MARCH 7, 2007 E-Discovery: The New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure A Practical Approach for Employers By Tara Daub and Christopher Gegwich News of the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Electronic Data What Does it Include, its Retention and Disclosure Electronic Data What Does it Include, its Retention and Disclosure MML Legal Track Wednesday, September 19, 2007 Karrie Zeits, City Attorney,
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
NLRB: NxGen Case Management, By: James G. Paulsen, Assistant General Counsel, OGC and Bryan Burnett, Chief Information Officer, OCIO, National Labor Relations Board A. Next Generation (NxGen) Case Management
Data Preservation Duties and Protocols November 2008 HOU:2858612.3 Discussion Outline I. The Differences Between Electronic and Paper Discovery II. The Parameters of Electronic Discovery III. Rule 37(e)
MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT Cyber Tech & E-Commerce The Duty To Preserve Data Stored Temporarily In Ram: Is The Sky Really Falling? by J. Alexander Lawrence Morrison & Foerster New York, New York A commentary
Session 6 ERM Case Law: The Annual MER Update of the Latest News, Trends, & Issues Hon. John M. Facciola United States District Court, District of Columbia Kenneth J. Withers, Esq. Deputy Executive Director,
Ethics and ediscovery John Mansfield and Devon Newman January 6, 2012 1 2013, MansfieldLaw ediscovery basics We will cover: Preservation and spoliation Searching and producing documents Supervising lawyers
Page 1 1 of 2 DOCUMENTS Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. No. B250600 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO 230 Cal. App. 4th 35; 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS
COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA PRACTICE DIRECTION GUIDELINES REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS Introduction While electronic documents are included in the definition of document contained
Electronic Discovery: Litigation Holds, Data Preservation and Production April 27, 2010 Daniel Munsch, Assistant General Counsel John Lerchey, Coordinator for Incident Response 0 E-Discovery Rules Federal
E-DISCOVERY: BURDENSOME, EXPENSIVE, AND FRAUGHT WITH RISK If your company is involved in civil litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding preservation and production of electronic documents
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
E-DISCOVERY IN THE US A PRIMER Changing legal requirements and growing volumes of electronically stored information have made the discovery process more daunting and costly than ever before. This article
PROPOSED ELECTRONIC DATA DISCOVERY GUIDELINES FOR THE MARYLAND BUSINESS AND TECHONOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JUDGES What follows are some general, suggested guidelines for addressing different areas
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
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
Elements of a Good Document Retention Policy Discovery Services WHITE PAPER Document retention especially the retention of electronic data has become a hot topic in the legal industry. In the wake of several
E-Discovery Guidance for Federal Government Professionals Summer 2014 Allison Stanton Director, E-Discovery, FOIA, & Records Civil Division, Department of Justice Adam Bain Senior Trial Counsel Civil Division,
Professional Responsibility and New Technology Kelly A. Campbell Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP Presentation to Association of Corporate Counsel May 9, 2012 Overview Competence: Duty to know Social Media
Rule 45. Subpoena. (a) Form; Issuance. (1) Every subpoena shall state all of the following: a. The title of the action, the name of the court in which the action is pending, the number of the civil action,
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
Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Electronic Discovery effective Dec. 1, 2006 Copyright David A. Devine GROH EGGERS, LLC Rules amended: 16, 26, 33, 34, 37 & 45 Sources of information: Rules
RULE 10 FUNDS HELD BY THE CLERK 10.1 General. A Judge of the District Court may order that any monies in actions pending before the Court be invested in any local financial institution for safe keeping.
E-Discovery in Employment Litigation: Making Practical, Yet Defensible Decisions 11 E-Discovery in Employment Litigation: Making Practical, Yet Defensible Decisions Introduction Much has been said about
ESI Discovery THE DUTY TO PRESERVE, COLLECT, AND PRODUCE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION HELD BY THIRD PARTIES Ronald C. Wernette, Bowman and Brooke LLP Introduction The legal landscape is now littered
Amendments to the Rules to Civil Procedure: Yours to E-Discover Prepared by Christopher M. Bartlett Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP September 25, 2009 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure: Yours to
Case 4:08-cv-00142-MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 4:08-CV-142
Department of Veterans Affairs VA Directive 6311 Washington, DC 20420 Transmittal Sheet June 15, 2012 VA E-DISCOVERY 1. REASON FOR ISSUE: To establish policy concerning the care and handling of documents
COALSP 2013 E-Discovery Case Law Update Drew Unthank Partner Wheeler Trigg O Donnell LLP Agenda Where have we come from? Where are we now? Where are we going? Antacids Where Have We Come From? Litigation
INTERNET ISSUES: PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS NEW E-DISCOVERY RULES William R. Denny Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP September 26, 2006 Agenda What is a Trade Secret? Tracking Down the Anonymous Blogger Strategies
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 firstname.lastname@example.org The Boundaries Of Monitoring Employee E-Mail
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY Dawn M. Curry Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, Massachusetts 02210 Telephone 617.439.2000 www.nutter.com E-Discovery Facts 93-99% of
E-MAIL LINKS DATABASES SEARCH FIRMS MEMBER PROFILES FORUM VENDORS CALENDAR SEARCH My Dashboard My Messages (1) Firm Menu My Articles My Expert Witnesses My Links My Mediators / Arbiters My News / Updates
California Electronic Discovery Rules William W. Belt, Jr. July 16, 2009 Today s speaker and some notes... Bill Belt William.Belt@LeClairRyan.com Welcome. With the high number of attendees, please note
New Amendments to Rule 26 Dictate Use of Electronic Discovery Technology by Larry Johnson, Esq. Director, Electronic Discovery Services Fios Copyright 2000, by Fios, Inc Under the Rules Enabling Act, 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSCOE FRANKLIN CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-3359 v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL ASSURANCE COMPANY O Neill, J. November 9, 2004 MEMORANDUM
Litigation Holds: Ten Tips in Ten Minutes Stephanie F. Stacy Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, LLP 1248 O Street, Suite 600 Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 email@example.com Introduction A litigation
GUIDELINES FOR USE OF THE MODEL AGREEMENT REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION Experience increasingly demonstrates that discovery of electronically stored information ( ESI poses challenges
Filed 8/27/14 Vasquez v. Cal. School of Culinary Arts CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
Social Media & ediscovery: Untangling the Tweets for the Trials Jack Halprin, Esq. Vice President, ediscovery & Compliance POWER PROTECT PROMOTE Agenda Social Media Sites: What, Who, Where & How Discoverability
SMITHSONIAN DIRECTIVE 113, July 24, 2012 RESPONDING TO SUBPOENAS AND REQUESTS FOR EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES I. Purpose 1 II. Scope 1 III. Roles and Responsibilities 3 IV. Policy 4 V. Definitions 5 5 I. Purpose
Case:-cv-00-RS Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JASMINDA WEBB, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff,
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
State of Michigan Records Management Services Frequently Asked Questions About E mail Retention It is essential that government agencies manage their electronic mail (e mail) appropriately. Like all other
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0761 444444444444 IN RE NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DISCOVERY IN BAD FAITH CASES Barbara A. O Brien A. The Tort of Bad Faith Bad faith is a separate tort from breach of contract. Anderson v. Continental Ins. Co., 85 Wis.2d 675, 686, 271 N.W.2d 368 (1978).
2015 ANNUAL MEETING Vancouver, BC September 11, 2015 Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A New Scope of Discovery? 2010 DUKE CONFERENCE May 10-11 Duke Law School 200 Participants
Page 1 FOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS NICOLE TERRY, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hunter Wellman, Jr., Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEBORAH A. WELLMAN, Defendants.
Patent Litigation at the ITC: Views from the Government, In-House Attorneys and Outside Counsel In-House Panel Sponsored by: THE GIBBONS INSTITUTE OF LAW, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Seton Hall University School
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
SECURING A STAY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS By: Kenneth E. Prather, Sr. KENNETH E. PRATHER, SR.,P.C., 19846 Mack Avenue Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236 Phone: 313-884-5622/313-884-6073 (Fax) Email:email@example.com
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
Electronic Discovery Presented by: Jonathan Adams www.salixdata.com 513-381-2679 Our Goal Explain E-Discovery in layman s terms Equip you to be able to add value to your organization SALIX is the region
Electronic Discovery L. Amy Blum, Esq. UCLA University of California, Los Angeles 1 Topics Not Covered Best practices for E-mail E use and retention in the ordinary course of business Records Disposition
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
Be Prepared: How The New Changes To The FRCP Affect Information Governance Presented by John Isaza, Esq., FAI CEO, Information Governance Solutions, LLC Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:00 p.m. (PDT) Your Presenters
STATE OF MICHIGAN MACOMB COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JOHN E. BUTERBAUGH and CARRIE BUTERBAUGH, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2012-4691-CH SELENE FINANCIAL, LP, JPMORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORP., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
Case 1:07-cv-00514-GJQ Document 58 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WALTER E. HARRIS v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-CV-514 HON.
Case :-cv-00-btm-rbb Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, vs. MADSEN MEDICAL, INC., et al., MADSEN
Any and all documents Meets Electronically Stored Information: Discovery in the Electronic Age Panel Members Judge Ronald L. Buch, Moderator Panelists The Honorable Paul W. Grimm U.S. District Court for
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)
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
Electronic Evidence and Discovery: The Changes in the Federal Rules April 25, 2007 Bill Belt Key dates» 2000 Judge Scheindlin coins term ESI in Boston College Law Review Article.» 2000 Chair of the Advisory
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BMG MUSIC,