Guidelines & Metrics for Efficient and Dynamic Inside-Outside Counsel Partnerships

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Guidelines & Metrics for Efficient and Dynamic Inside-Outside Counsel Partnerships"

Joy Simmons
8 years ago
Views:

1 Guidelines & Metrics for Efficient and Dynamic Inside-Outside Counsel Partnerships Virtual Corporate Counsel April 19 th, 2012

2 The Faculty Dawson Horn III Senior Litigation Counsel Tyco International Eric S. Knustrom, Esq. Account Executive Liquid Litigation Management, Inc.

3 The Complexities of e-discovery With the rapid and sweeping advent of electronic discovery, the litigation landscape has been radically altered in terms of scope, mechanism, cost, and perplexity. This landscape may be littered with more casualties than successes PSEG Power N.Y., Inc. v. Alberici Constructors, Inc.

4 Consequences of Poor Litigation Derailed trial strategy Management Team tension leading to sub-par performance Missed deadlines Sanctions Philips Electronics Corp. v. BC Technical, 2011 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(b) Skyrocketing costs Zarwasch-Weiss v. SKF Economos USA, Inc., 2011 Injury to reputation Green v. Blitz 2011

Corp. v. BC Technical, 2011 Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

5 P.I.M.A.

6 Why P.I.M.A.? Integrate inside and outside counsel more effectively. Reduce the cost of e-discovery and litigation. Streamline workflows to reduce errors. Prevent past mistakes from becoming future headaches. To support the merits of the case and ultimately WIN.

7 : Before the Complaint Know your IT team Explain expectations (e.g. litigation hold) Understand your IT infrastructure

8 : After the Complaint Understand the dispute Know your timetable the Rules Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and 16(b) SDNY Pilot Project Rules for Complex Litigation Who do I need to involve? Who owns the facts? Magana v Hyundai Motor Am., 2009 Whose business am I about to disrupt? Litigation Hold Preliminary Early Case Assessment: How big/serious/far reaching is this? Budget development

Who owns the facts? Magana v Hyundai Motor Am., 2009 Whose business am I about to disrupt?

9 : After the Complaint Assemble a winning team Outside Counsel Vendors Others Establish workflows and processes Gentex v. Sutter 2009 J-M v. McDermott

10 Maintain a big-picture overview Coordinate, monitor and coach Reporting systems that are deadline driven Let your team do its work But remember, ignorance is not bliss Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation Gener v. TR Investors

your team do its work But remember, ignorance is not

11 Make expectations clear Share measurements Develop proactive measurement tools J-M v. McDermott Keep measurements flexible In Re: Nat l Assoc. of Music Merchants

12 Remember, most cases evolve over time Allow for a dynamic infrastructure Analyze: is an issue the result of: Team member that needs adjustments Anticipate staff rollover with robust documentation of workflow and expectations Retain past plans in case they gain relevancy Constantly adjust throughout the lifecycle Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig.

robust documentation of workflow and expectations Retain past plans in case they gain

13 Conclusion PIMA is dynamic and ongoing Goal is continuous improvement Future cases benefit from past cases PIMA is a disciplined tool and process, adhere to these principles and consider advanced technology as your friend PIMA is linked to the ebb and flow of a case

disciplined tool and process, adhere to these principles and

14 Accompanying material available at blog.liquidlitigation.com Bibliography Case Law Green v. Blitz 2011 WL (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011) Gentex v. Sutter 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (M.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2009) In re National Association of Music Merchants, Musical Instruments, and Equipment Antitrust Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) In re Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., No. 1:09-md-2089-TCB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2012) Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv PMP VCF, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2012) Osborne v. C.H. Robinson Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2011). Zarwasch-Weiss v. SKF Economos USA, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2011). Philips Electronics N. Amer. Corp. v. BC Technical, No. 2:08-CV-639-CW-SA, 2011 WL (D. Utah Feb. 16, 2011) Genger v. TR Investors, LLC, 2011 WL (Del. Supr. July 18, 2011) J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. McDermott Will & Emery (No. BC462832, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.) PSEG Power N.Y., Inc. v. Alberici Constructors, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007) Magana v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2009 WL (Wash. Nov. 25, 2009) Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., "Qualcomm IV", 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010). Statutes & Rules Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26 & 16(b) Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(b)

19, 2011) In re Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., No. 1:09-md-2089-TCB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13462 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2012) Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00068-PMP VCF, 2012 U.

Bringing Electronic Discovery In House as a Managed Service

Bringing Electronic Discovery In House as a Managed Service Dickstein Shapiro and Océ Business Services Collaboration for Managed Services Electronic Discovery Introductions Richard Perrin, Esq. E-Discovery