1 Discovery A THOMSON WEST REPORT COMMENTARY Reprinted From E-Discovery: A Thomson West Report Metadata and E-Discovery By Ralph C. Losey, Esq. What is metadata? Literally it means data about data. Many courts define the term by referring to the Sedona Conference s glossary of commonly used terms for e-discovery and digital information management, which defines metadata as: information about a particular data set or document which describes how, when and by whom it was collected, created, accessed, modified and how it is formatted. Can be altered intentionally or inadvertently. Can be extracted when native files are converted to image. Some metadata, such as file dates and sizes, can easily be seen by users; other metadata can be hidden or embedded and unavailable to computer users who are not technically adept. Metadata is generally not reproduced in full form when a document is printed. All computer files have metadata associated or within them that provide information about the files. For instance, software includes information in files about its author, creation date, attachments and identities of all recipients, including those who received a copy or blind copy. Metadata even tells you if an has been opened by a recipient. The printout of an , which is essentially a TIFF version of the , may not show the blind copies and certainly will not tell you if it has been read or not. The metadata of an will also maintain the history of the and its conversation thread, such as who replied and who forwarded. Also, unless it is a Microsoft Outlook stripped out of its PST file into a MSG file, it will tell you in what folder the was filed by its custodian. Some programs include information within the contents of files that is hidden until you instruct the software to reveal the information. This is called embedded information, and courts frequently refer to such information as metadata. Technically, it is not true metadata because it is not data about data. It is not information about the file itself. Instead, it is information within a file, but hidden for some reason. It is information that the user has created, but is not visible without a command.
2 2 A good example of this is the comments feature in Microsoft Word. Comments can be inserted into a Word document that are not visible until you use the view command to show them. The comments are embedded into the file itself. Another example is the formula that a user can place in an Excel or other spreadsheet to calculate values within a cell. The math used to calculate the value of a spreadsheet cell is embedded in the file. Although technically embedded data is not metadata, for purposes of legal analysis embedded data is treated as a form or type of metadata because most courts, and the legal profession at large, do not grasp the distinction. When Should Metadata Be Produced? The foremost metadata issue facing all parties and courts today is when metadata should be produced. The answer is found in a string of cases from 2005 to Williams I The key case on metadata is Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005). Here, terminated employees brought a class action and sought Excel spreadsheets with all metadata intact, including embedded formulas. The court held that under emerging standards of electronic discovery, metadata ordinarily visible to users of Excel spreadsheets should presumptively be treated as part of the document and should thus be discoverable. Id. at 652. The court reviewed case law, the pending new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and commentary, and the Sedona Conference s principles for electronic document production, especially Principle 12, which says that [u]nless it is material to resolving the dispute, there is no obligation to preserve and produce metadata absent agreement of the parties or order of the court. The commentary to this principle at that time opined that most of the metadata has no evidentiary value, and any time (and money) spent reviewing it is a waste of resources. The commentary also set forth an important caveat or exception to principle 12: Of course, if the producing party knows or should reasonably know that particular metadata is relevant to the dispute, it should be produced. The court accepted principle 12, with commentary, as an important part of the emerging standard, but rejected Sprint s argument that this meant the Excel spreadsheets metadata should not be produced. Instead, the court found that the Excel metadata was material to the dispute, and Sprint should have known that and should have produced it. The actual holding then goes even further: Based on these emerging standards, the court holds that when a party is ordered to produce electronic documents as they are maintained in the ordinary course of business, the producing party should produce the electronic documents with their metadata intact, unless that party timely objects to production of metadata, the parties agree that the metadata should not be produced, or the producing party requests a protective order. The initial burden with regard to the disclosure of the metadata would therefore be placed on the party to whom the request or order to produce is directed. The burden to object to the disclosure of metadata is appropriately placed on the party ordered to produce its electronic documents as they are ordinarily maintained because that party already has access to the metadata and is in the best position to determine whether producing it is objectionable.
3 3 Placing the burden on the producing party is further supported by the fact that metadata is an inherent part of an electronic document, and its removal ordinarily requires an affirmative act by the producing party that alters the electronic document. Until recently, it looked like, in spite of principle 12, metadata production was indeed to be the new standard, especially since new Rule 34(b)(2)(B) went into effect, which requires production of electronically stored information as is kept in the usual course of business or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable. The usual course of business is to keep files in their native format, because that is how they are used (i.e.,.doc files created in Word,.xls files created in Excel), and native files by definition include all metadata. Williams II Several recent cases, along with a sequel to Williams itself, have, however, shown that the exact nature of the emerging standard is still in doubt. First, the sequel: Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 2006 WL (D. Kan. 2006). The spreadsheets in question in Williams I were produced in native format as the court ordered, but the plaintiffs wanted more. They returned to the court a year later to try to compel production in native format of all 11,000 s produced that transmitted spreadsheets. The judge here used a golf analogy for native format: Play it like it lies. The plaintiffs argued that the original native files of the s were needed in order for them to determine which s transmitted which spreadsheets. The defendant had the burden to show why this native production should not be done, that it was permissible for it to have improved their lie. The defendant met this burden, and the motion to compel was denied, primarily because the s had already been produced on paper without objection, and a second reproduction at that point would have been very burdensome, especially since the s contained many attorney-client-privileged materials. Actually, the plaintiffs had originally objected to paper production of the s, but had withdrawn their objection during one of many discovery hearings based on the defendant s assurances that it would provide spreadsheet reports that would match up the transmittal s with their respective attachments. The defendant argued it had done so as agreed, but the plaintiffs complained that the spreadsheet reports were deficient, and they were unable to match them up. The court disagreed that the spreadsheet reports were deficient, noted the apparent impossibility to redact privileged materials from native files, and held that since the plaintiffs had already received production in one format (paper), the new rules protected the defendant from having to produce them again in another format (native). To continue the golf analogy, the court in effect applied new Rule 34(b)(iii) to prevent the plaintiffs from receiving a mulligan, a second request. The judge s exact wording is instructive and, to a certain extent, explains and clarifies Williams I: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(iii), as amended on Dec. 1, 2006, provides that [u]nless the parties otherwise agree, or the court otherwise orders, a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. In this case, defendant has already produced the transmittal s, as well as all the attachments to those s.
4 4 Defendant has further created spreadsheet reports to correlate the transmittal s to the attachments they transmitted. The court therefore finds that under Rule 34(b)(iii), defendant need not re-produce its transmittal s together with their attachments in native format, as requested by plaintiffs. Defendant raises legitimate concerns about producing the transmittal s with their attachments in their native format, including whether production in native format would permit the redaction or removal of privileged information in the transmittal or the attachment. Moreover, even assuming that defendant could produce the transmittal s together with their attachments in native format with the privileged information redacted, plaintiffs have not sufficiently explained why they need the transmittal s in their native format. Previously, this court has ordered defendant to produce the spreadsheets in native format, but in that instance plaintiffs provided valid reasons for the spreadsheets to be produced in their native format. Namely, that the contents of the spreadsheet cells could not otherwise be viewed as the cells contained formulas. Also, in many instances, the column width of the cells prevented viewing of the entire content of the cells. Here, other than arguing that ordering defendant to reproduce the transmittal s together with their attachments in native format would be more helpful to plaintiffs in matching up the transmittal s with their respective attachments, plaintiffs fail to provide any other reason why they need the transmittal s produced in their native format. For these reasons, the court denies plaintiffs request for defendant to produce all its transmittal s in native format with all attachments in native format and attached to the transmittal s. The Williams II court did, however, say the plaintiffs could pose specific interrogatories to the defendant as necessary to decipher the spreadsheet reports and determine which s matched with a particular spreadsheet. Wyeth Another court quoted Williams I, but reached an opposite result, disallowing production of native-format files in Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories Inc., 2006 WL (D. Del. 2006). The facts behind the decision are similar to those of Williams II. The court in Wyeth declined to require metadata production, relying primarily on the failure to request metadata before the production and a local rule making TIFF and JPEG the default formats of production. In effect, the court was relying on the one format production limitation of revised Rule 34(b), although the new rule had not yet gone into effect and was not mentioned in the opinion. The Wyeth court explained its ruling as follows: Since the parties have never agreed that electronic documents would be produced in any particular format, Wyeth complied with its discovery obligation by producing image files. Further, neither party has argued that the need for accessing metadata was foreseeable or generally necessary. Finally, Impax has not demonstrated a particularized need for the metadata or database production it has requested. Therefore, this part of Impax s motion is denied. Wyeth apparently tries to buttress the decision with a quote from Williams I that the emerging standards of electronic discovery appear to articulate a general
5 5 presumption against the production of metadata. The court correctly quotes Williams I, but does not point out that this was a summary of the defendant s position, which Williams I rejected. (Williams II had not yet been decided.) Kentucky Speedway A better-reasoned case in a Kentucky district court explicitly rejects Williams I: Kentucky Speedway v. NASCAR, No (E.D. Ky. 2006). This is an antitrust action against NASCAR in which the defendants had already spent $3 million in five months responding to e-discovery requests. Then, with that background, the plaintiff for the first time asks for production of all metadata in documents already produced. (Again, note the similarities with Williams II, which had not yet been decided.) The plaintiff relied upon Williams I to try to justify this late request but failed to make any showing of a particularized need for the metadata. The Kentucky Speedway judge rejected Williams I in this context and instead followed Wyeth, holding that: In the rapidly evolving world of electronic discovery, the holding of the Williams case is not persuasive. Having the benefit of the newly amended rules, advisory notes and commentary of scholars, I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that a producing party should produce the electronic documents with their metadata intact, unless that party timely objects, the parties agree that the metadata should not be produced or the producing party requests a protective order. Here, the parties clearly had no agreement that the electronic files would be produced in any particular format. Plaintiff did not notify defendant ISC that it sought metadata until seven months after ISC had produced both hard copy and electronic copies of its documents. To the extent that plaintiff seeks metadata for a specific document or documents where date and authorship information is unknown but relevant, plaintiff should identify that document or documents by Bates number or by other reasonably identifying features. Responding to a request for additional information concerning specific documents would be far less burdensome to defendant and far more likely to produce relevant information. The opinion in Kentucky Speedway does not answer the question of whether the court would have reached the same result if the plaintiff had made the request for metadata from the beginning, and not waited until after the defendants had already spent millions of dollars to produce the same documents without metadata. It is, however, clear from Kentucky Speedway that whenever a metadata production will create a substantial burden on the producing party (here, it would have cost NASCAR another $500,000), the requesting party will have to provide good cause. The plaintiff s reliance on Williams I to support the production of metadata in all circumstances, and without a good-cause showing, was misplaced and distorts the actual holding of Williams I (as shown for instance by Williams II). Instead, both Williams rulings stand for the proposition that the producing party must object and show undue burden, and the burden then shifts to the requesting party to prove good cause. The argument on metadata production is essentially the same as the inaccessibility argument under Rule 26(b)(2)(B). ). If you can show a real need to see the metadata, as the plaintiffs did in Williams I (but not
6 6 Williams II), it may be possible to compel the production in spite of burden on the producing party. It will be a balancing test dependent upon the circumstances and following something like the seven factors recommended by the Rules Committee for 26(b)(2)(B) analysis, 1 and earlier in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC for cost-shifting, 2 but with the added dimension of the debatable feasibility at this time of redacting privileged materials from native files. In re Payment The latest word in this controversy of emerging standards comes out of a consolidated group of class actions styled In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, No. MD , 2007 WL (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2007). As in Kentucky Speedway, Wyeth and Williams II, the defendants here sought the production of the metadata for documents already produced without metadata. (Actually, the defendants never filed a motion to compel; they just raised the issue at a conference, and that was part of the problem.) In addition, the defendants wanted the plaintiffs to produce all metadata on documents they had not yet produced. As to the previously produced documents, the holding here follows Kentucky Speedway, Wyeth and Williams II. In re Payment holds that the defendants waited too long to complain of the metadata-stripped production and implied that there had been a waiver. The lesson here is that in order to obtain metadata you may need, you should specifically ask for that metadata to begin with, and if the production is later stripped of the metadata requested, you should immediately and vigorously object. In re Payment also followed Williams I to a certain extent, in that it ordered all future productions by the plaintiffs to include metadata. The court explained its reasons for requiring full metadata production: The defendants object to individual plaintiffs production protocol on the grounds that, by failing to supply metadata, it does not comply with amended Rule 34. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, in its notes to the 2006 amendment to Rule 34, wrote that a party responding to a discovery request may elect to produce a reasonably usable form of electronic data rather than produce the information as kept in the ordinary course of business. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b), 2006 Amendment, Advisory Committee s Note. That is precisely what the individual plaintiffs have done. By making that choice, however, they have run afoul of the Advisory Committee s proviso that data ordinarily kept in electronically searchable form should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades this feature. Id. However, the same cannot be said of prospective discovery, meaning the electronic documents that the individual plaintiffs have not yet substantially prepared for production as searchable TIFF images. Now that the individual plaintiffs are aware of the defendants objections, their argument of undue burden is weaker; indeed, they have conceded that their concerns about the burdens of producing electronic documents in native format largely disappear with respect to the documents they have not yet processed for production. Thus this new metadata case, like Williams I and II, supports the proposition that the emerging standard requires metadata production when requested and not objected to, but at the same time emphasizes the need for early, clear requests and prompt objections if the metadata is not provided.
7 7 Ralph C. Losey is a 1979 cum laude graduate of the University of Florida College of Law, with a B.A. from Vanderbilt University. He is a practicing attorney and co-chair of Akerman Senterfi tt s electronic discovery practice group. Mr. Losey was the fi rst attorney in Florida with a Web site and has been involved with computers and technology since He currently maintains two law-related Web sites and a blog on e-discovery: Ralph Losey s Law Web, oridalawfi rm.com; the e-discoveryteam site, and the e-discoveryteam blog, Notes 1 The committee listed seven factors similar to those delineated in Zubulake I, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2003). The committee said, Appropriate considerations may include: (1) the specifi city of the discovery request; (2) the quantity of information available from other and more easily accessed sources; (3) the failure to produce relevant information that seems likely to have existed but is no longer available on more easily accessed sources; (4) the likelihood of fi nding relevant, responsive information that cannot be obtained from other, more easily accessed sources; (5) predictions as to the importance and usefulness of the further information; (6) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and (7) the parties resources. FED. R. CIV. P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes 2006 Amendments Subdivision (b). 2 In conducting the cost-shifting analysis, the following factors should be considered, weighted more-or-less in the following order: (1) the extent to which the request is specifi - cally tailored to discover relevant information; (2) the availability of such information from other sources; (3) the total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy; (4) the total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party; (5) the relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so; (6) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and (7) the relative benefi ts to the parties of obtaining the information. Zubulake, 217 F.R.D. 309.
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,
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 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
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
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),
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
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
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
case 2:13-cv-00245-RLM-PRC document 73 filed 04/10/14 page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) Plaintiff, ) )
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,
MDLA TTS August 23, 2013 ediscovery for DUMMIES LAWYERS Kate Burke Mortensen, Esq. email@example.com Scott Polus, Director of Forensic Services firstname.lastname@example.org 1 Where Do I Start??
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
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
Legal Arguments & Response Strategies for E-Discovery The tools to craft strategic discovery requests & mitigate the risks and burdens of production. Discussion Outline Part I Strategies for Requesting
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
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
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
ProSeLex White Page: The Basics on Handling Email Attachments in e- Discovery Email attachments can be particularly problematic items in electronic discovery. One wrong move in collection can divorce attachments
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
Case 2:14-cv-02159-KHV-JPO Document 12 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KYLE ALEXANDER, and DYLAN SYMINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all those
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
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
E-DISCOVERY IN FEDERAL COURT: SIX CHANGES YOU SHOULD MAKE TO YOUR PRACTICE IN THE DISCOVERY PHASE OF THE CASE By Kary Pratt 1. YOU MUST CHANGE THE WAY YOU REQUEST DOCUMENTS - FRCP 34(a) explicitly recognizes
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
ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION e-docs and Forensics in the New e-discovery Era www.aplf.org FRAMEWORK Overview of the Rule Changes Pre-Litigation Planning IT Audit Document Retention Policies Planning
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
WHOSE NEEDLE? WHOSE HAYSTACK?: COST ALLOCATION IN ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY Stephen F. McKinney, Esq. Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. Introduction By now, most all of us have been on the receiving end of a request
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
Franke v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil No. 1cv JM (JLB)
E-Discovery: Who Bears The Costs? (Part II) By: In the first part of this article, E-Discovery: Who bears the costs? (Part I), the five types of data storage identified by Judge Sceindlin in Zubulake v.
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
NAVIGATING THE NEW WORLD OF ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY By David S. Curcio March 7, 2007 HISTORY OF THE NEW RULES Liberal discovery was first ushered in by the 1938 amendments to the federal rules, with expansions
Chapter 9 Handling Costly E-Discovery Demands in Smaller Cases Neal Walters Neal Walters is of counsel with the firm of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP in its Voorhees, New Jersey office. Mr. Walters
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
2016 CLM Annual Conference April 6-8, 2016 Orlando, FL Reduce Cost and Risk during Discovery E-DISCOVERY GLOSSARY Understanding e-discovery definitions and concepts is critical to working with vendors,
Vincent T. Chang, Chair Federal Courts Committee New York County Lawyers Association 14 Vesey Street New York, NY 10007 March 20, 2013 COMMENTS OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION FEDERAL COURTS
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
Predictability in E-Discovery Presented by: John G. Roman, Jr. National Manager, Practice Group Technology Services Nixon Peabody LLP Tom Barce Assistant Director of Practice Support Fulbright & Jaworski
AN E-DISCOVERY MODEL ORDER INTRODUCTION Since becoming a staple of American civil litigation, e-discovery has been the subject of extensive review, study, and commentary. See The Sedona Principles: Best
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
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
Metadata, Electronic File Management and File Destruction By David Outerbridge, Torys LLP A. Metadata What is Metadata? Metadata is usually defined as data about data. It is a level of extra information
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
Power-Up Your Privilege Review: Protecting Privileged Materials in Ediscovery Jeff Schomig, WilmerHale Stuart Altman, Hogan Lovells Joe White, Kroll Ontrack Sheldon Noel, Kroll Ontrack (moderator) April
ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Section Annual Conference April 18 20, 2012: Deposition Practice in Complex Cases: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly The to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the
Sponsored by ediscovery: The New Information Management Battleground Developments in the Law and Best Practices Kahn Consulting Inc. (847) 266-0722 email@example.com Introduction The following
NOTE THE REQUIREMENT FOR METADATA PRODUCTION UNDER WILLIAMS V. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO.: AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN FOR LITIGANTS ENGAGED IN ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY Lucia Cucu INTRODUCTION... 221 I. BACKGROUND...
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION In re: LOUIS J. PEARLMAN, et al., Debtor. / Case No. 6:07-bk-00761-ABB Chapter 11 Jointly Administered DEFENDANTS 1 OBJECTION
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
E-Discovery in Michigan ESI Presented by Angela Boufford DISCLAIMER: This is by no means a comprehensive examination of E-Discovery issues. You will not be an E-Discovery expert after this presentation.
Record Retention Issues for Human Resources Rodney A. Satterwhite Introduction Human resources records are changing. Less than five years ago, the most common type of HR record was a paper personnel file,
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
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
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
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
Making and responding to electronic discovery requests By Martin Felsky and Peg Duncan One of the significant impacts of electronic discovery on litigation is the way in which it reconfigures the adversarial
The Ethics of E-Discovery By John M. Barkett Chicago, Illinois, 2009; ISBN 978-1-60442-256-6 Price $69.95, pp. 125 Reviewed by Tracy Flynn Journal of High Technology Law Suffolk University Law School E-discovery
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
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
CLIENT MEMORANDUM Hong Kong High Court Procedure E-Discovery: Practice Direction Effective September 1, 2014 August 28, 2014 Mandatory application of e-discovery Mandatory application of e-discovery to
CASE 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM Document 68 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA IN RE: NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE ) PLAYERS CONCUSSION INJURY ) MDL No. 14-2551 (SRN/JSM)
T e c h n o l o g y The Intersection The New E- of IT and Law Discovery Battle By Clinton P. Sanko and Cheryl Proctor of the Forms Guidance on how to choose a production form that is efficient and effective.
Electronic Discovery and Document Retention Guidelines for Government Attorneys and Administrators Prepared by Colin Jorgensen, Arkansas Attorney General s Office, June 2015 I. INTRODUCTION Advancing computer
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
LEGAL HOLD OBLIGATIONS FOR DISTRICT EMPLOYEES INSERT YOUR NAME HERE Place logo or logotype here, Otherwise delete this text box. AGENDA.. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure What is a legal hold? What are
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
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
Article originally appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of The Professional Engineer Electronic Discovery in Litigation By Douglas P. Jeremiah, P.E., Esq. Your firm is involved in litigation and you get the
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
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: Specialty Products Holdings Corp., et al. Bankruptcy No. 10-11780 Debtor(s) 1 Chapter 11 (Jointly Administered) Related to Doc.
SYRACUSE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW VOLUME 28 SPRING 2013 ARTICLE 6, PAGE 121 Abstract The Evolution of E-Discovery Model Orders Daniel B. Garrie, Esq. and Candice M. Lang, Esq. This article analyzes
AUTION! Electronic Picture yourself in the courtroom waiting for the judge. You sit at counsel table next to your client and your partner. The gavels raps, and the judge assumes the bench. She is visibly
Everything You Wanted to Know About ESI and E-Discovery but Were Afraid to Ask Jason M. Pistacchio Presented By: Gregory S. Johnson Attorney Attorney/Legal Technologist Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP Paine
CIVIL PRACTICE DIRECTIVE #1 REFERENCE: CIV-PD #1 E-DISCOVERY GUIDELINES Former Reference: Practice Directive #6 issued September 1, 2009 Effective: July 1, 2013 Introduction 1. While electronic documents
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:
E-Discovery: Who Bears The Costs? (Part I) By: KRISTIN B. PETTEY, ESQ. With the growth in the use of electronic media for communication and data storage, there has been a concomitant growth in the need