October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
|
|
- Patience Warner
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 OCTOBER 25, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. An opinion by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York ordering an adverse inference instruction against a plaintiff that had intentionally destroyed relevant s of key players and had failed to institute a litigation hold for more than 15 months after giving notice of a possible lawsuit; 2. A Northern District of California ruling warning a party that it might be required to use an e-discovery vendor and to submit sworn declarations after the Court found that the party s counsel was not sufficiently proactive in ensuring that document searches were complete in light of obvious gaps in production; and 3. A Southern District of California decision that the plaintiff was not entitled to spoliation sanctions because the spoliated evidence was irrelevant and the sanctions motion was untimely. 1. In Sekisui American Corp. v. Hart, 2013 WL (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2013), U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ordered an adverse inference instruction against a plaintiff that had intentionally destroyed relevant s of key players and had failed to institute a litigation hold for more than 15 months after giving notice of a potential lawsuit to defendants. Plaintiff Sekisui America Corporation brought an action against Richard Hart and Marie Louise Trudel-Hart for breach of contract relating to Sekisui s acquisition of America Diagnostica, Inc. ( ADI ). During discovery, Sekisui disclosed that files belonging to ADI employees including Hart and FDA compliance officer Leigh Ayres had been deleted or were missing and that Sekisui had not instituted a litigation hold until more than 15 months after sending a Notice of Claim to the defendants. The defendants requested sanctions for spoliation of evidence in the form of (1) an adverse inference instruction based on the destruction of Hart s and Ayres ESI, and (2) sanctions for spoliation based on alleged or actual loss of the folders of other ADI employees. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who found that plaintiff s conduct may have amounted to gross negligence and that the deleted ESI may have been relevant but declined to impose sanctions because the defendants had failed to show prejudice. Sekisui American Corp. v. Hart, 2013 WL (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2013). Judge Scheindlin reversed the decision of the magistrate judge and imposed sanctions based on Sekisui s destruction of ESI. She stated that the Second Circuit decision in Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002), established the standards governing adverse inference instructions. A party seeking an adverse inference instruction must establish: (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind; and (3) that the destroyed evidence was relevant Sidley Austin provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, ; One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, ; and 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C ,
2 Page 2 to the party s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense. Sekisui, 2013 WL , at *4 (quoting Residential Funding, 306 F.3d at 107). Judge Scheindlin found that all three factors were met. On the duty to preserve, Sekisui conceded that it had an obligation to preserve the evidence that had been destroyed. Sekisui, 2013 WL , at *4 n.48. With respect to culpability, Judge Scheindlin stated that a culpable state of mind could be found based on a showing that evidence was destroyed knowingly, in the absence of intent or negligence Id. Such a rule existed as a necessary balance for restoring the evidentiary balance. The inference is adverse to the destroyer not because of any finding of moral culpability, but because the risk that the evidence would have been detrimental rather than favorable should fall on the party responsible for its loss. Id. (quoting Residential Funding, 306 F.3d at 108). The Court ruled that the destruction of Hart s and Ayres s evidence was willful and/or intentional and stated that the suggestion that the ESI was destroyed to save space on the server did not change the fact that it was done willfully. Sekisui, 2013 WL , at *6. Judge Scheindlin noted that that [i]n the context of an adverse inference instruction, there is no analytical distinction between destroying evidence in bad faith... and destroying it willfully. Id. The Court also found that the plaintiff s failure to implement appropriate document retention procedures in this case constituted gross negligence. Judge Scheindlin cited the following facts in support of this finding of gross negligence: that no litigation hold was issued until fifteen months after the Notice of Claim was sent to defendants, that Sekisui is the plaintiff and had full knowledge of the possibility of litigation, that Sekisui failed to notify its IT vendor of the litigation hold until six months after its issuance, and that at least two significant ADI employees s were destroyed at ADI s direction. Id. On the issue of relevance, Judge Scheindlin found that the Hart and Ayres s were relevant, as Hart s and Ayres positions at the company meant that their electronic communications addressed, among other things, the adequacy of ADI s facilities and the company s compliance with FDA regulations, two issues in the breach of contract case. Id. at *7. The remaining issue was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated prejudice. On this point, Judge Scheindlin overruled the magistrate judge, finding that prejudice is presumed if the s were willfully destroyed. The Court held that once willfulness is established, no burden is imposed on the innocent party to point to now-destroyed evidence which is no longer available because the other party destroyed it. Id. (emphasis in original). Judge Scheindlin pointed out that requiring an innocent party to prove prejudice would skew incentives: To shift the burden to the innocent party to describe or produce what has been lost as a result of the opposing party s willful or grossly negligent conduct is inappropriate because it incentivizes bad behavior on the part of would-be spoliators. That is, it would allow parties who have destroyed evidence to profit from that destruction. Id. (quoting Residential Funding, 306 F.3d at 109). The Court noted that prejudice is presumed only in determining whether to give an adverse inference instruction, as the jury may still determine that the defendants were not prejudiced and decline to draw any adverse inference. Sekisui, 2013 WL , at *7. Based on this record, the Court concluded that an adverse inference instruction was required and decided to give the following instructions, which stated in relevant part: Spoliation is the destruction of evidence or the failure to preserve property for another s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. To demonstrate that spoliation occurred, several elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence: First, that relevant evidence was destroyed after the duty to preserve arose.
3 Page 3 Second, that the evidence lost would have been favorable to the Harts. As to the first element I instruct you, as a matter of law, that Sekisui failed to preserve relevant evidence after its duty to preserve arose. This failure resulted from an employee s intentional directive given to ADI s information technology vendor to destroy the files of at least Richard Hart and Leigh Ayres. Moreover, this failure resulted from Sekisui s gross negligence in performing its discovery obligations. I direct you that I have already found as a matter of law that this lost evidence is relevant to the issues in this case. As to the second element, you may presume, if you so choose, that such lost evidence would have been favorable to the Harts. In deciding whether to adopt this presumption, you may take into account the egregiousness of the plaintiffs conduct in failing to preserve the evidence. Sekisui offered evidence that, although evidence was lost and it may have been relevant, nevertheless such evidence would not have been favorable to the Harts. If you decline to presume that the lost evidence would have been favorable to the Harts, then your consideration of the lost evidence is at an end, and you will not draw any inference arising from the lost evidence. However, if you decide to presume that the lost evidence would have been favorable to the Harts, you must next decide whether Sekisui rebutted that presumption. If you determine that Sekisui rebutted the presumption that the lost evidence was favorable to the Harts, you will not draw any inference arising from the lost evidence against Sekisui. If, on the other hand, you determine that Sekisui has not rebutted the presumption that the lost evidence was favorable to the Harts, you may draw an inference against Sekisui and in favor of the Harts namely that the lost evidence would have been favorable to the Harts. Id. at *8 (emphasis in original). The Court also found that the defendants were entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorneys fees. 2. In Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., 2013 WL (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013), Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu warned a party that it might be required to use an e-discovery vendor and to submit sworn declarations on document preservation and collection after the Magistrate Judge found that defense counsel was not sufficiently proactive in ensuring that document searches were complete in light of obvious gaps in production. Plaintiff Logtale, Inc., a shareholder in the pharmaceutical company IKOR, Inc., alleged that IKOR and two of its officers made misrepresentations to investors. Plaintiff served its first set of interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission on December 4, 2012 with a response deadline of January 7, IKOR did not serve responses until March 2013, and IKOR admitted that its responses were incomplete. The parties jointly filed a letter brief in which plaintiff moved for complete discovery. After IKOR s counsel failed to appear, the Court granted the motion to compel on April 22, 2013 and awarded plaintiff sanctions. IKOR served written discovery responses ordered by the Court and paid the sanctions, but plaintiff alleged that the responses remained incomplete. Id. at *4. Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce compliance with the Court s April 22 order, claiming that IKOR s production remained incomplete because defendants had failed to search adequately for all responsive electronic documents. At the time the motion was filed, all three defendants had produced a total of 121 s, 109 of which were communications with plaintiff. The lack of responsive documents, plaintiff alleged, raised concerns about the defendants retention and collection efforts. Defendants responded that its counsel had asked IKOR to complete a search for responsive documents, and when that search and a second requested search were incomplete, counsel had proposed a third search. Defendants claimed that counsel was then reviewing 10,000 documents returned by the third search. The Magistrate Judge ruled that defendants must produce all responsive documents no later than August 26, 2013 and that, if there were continuing problems, Magistrate Judge Ryu would order defendants to retain an e-discovery vendor
4 Page 4 and submit detailed sworn declarations regarding document preservation and collection. The Magistrate Judge admonished defense counsel that it had not been sufficiently proactive in ensuring that his clients are conducting thorough and appropriate document searches, especially in light of obvious gaps and underproduction. Id. at *2. The Magistrate Judge noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposed an affirmative obligation to ensure a search for responsive documents is complete. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) (emphasis in original)). Upon noticing gaps in the production, counsel was obligated to make a reasonable inquiry as to the thoroughness of that search. Logtale, 2013 WL , at *2. The Magistrate Judge also found that a defendant had waived his objections to various document requests because his responses were late. Acknowledging that the requests were vague and overbroad, however, the Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to refine the scope of production. Id. at *3. Further, the Magistrate Judge found that defense counsel s short narrative responses to interrogatories with references to various documents and pleadings were insufficient and ordered them to be supplemented. Id. The Magistrate Judge awarded $5,200 in attorneys fees due to defendants failure to timely and appropriately respond to the discovery requests. 3. In Cottle-Banks v. Cox Communications, Inc., 2013 WL (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2013), U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel held that plaintiff was not entitled to spoliation sanctions because the spoliated evidence was irrelevant to the case and the sanctions motion was untimely. The case involved a claim that Cox Communications sent new cable customers a set-top box allowing those customers to access extra services without asking them to affirm that they wanted the device and without disclosing that Cox would charge extra for use of the device. Id. at *4. On September 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a putative class action against Cox for charging class members rental fees for equipment they never requested. Id. at *11. On June 14, 2011, plaintiff requested that Cox produce all recordings of telephone calls with customers and/or potential customers. Id. at *12. Cox s counsel responded that Cox had not preserved customer-call recordings but had instead followed the company s usual practice of taping over those recordings every 30 days. Id. Cox did, however, begin preserving call recordings after the June 2011 production request. Id. On September 2, 2011, plaintiff filed another motion to compel production of Cox s call recordings, and the Court instructed Cox to produce a random sample of 200 calls, with Cox thereafter producing 280 call recordings by early Id. Plaintiff filed yet another motion to compel, but then withdrew the motion. Id. On January 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for spoliation sanctions, based on Cox s failure to preserve calls starting in September Id. Specifically, plaintiff requested two sanctions: (1) An adverse inference instruction that all of the lost call recordings would have evinced a common practice by [Cox of] not disclosing equipment and corresponding charges during telephone calls with customers ordering cable service ; or (2) An order precluding Cox from introducing evidence that pre-june 2011 recordings complied with the applicable law. Id. at *10. The district court first considered and denied plaintiff s motion for class certification, id. at *6-*10, and then addressed the request for an adverse inference instruction. As the Ninth Circuit has not yet adopted a test establishing standards for imposing such an instruction, the Court relied on the Second Circuit s test: a court may impose an adverse inference instruction for spoliation if (1) the custodian had an obligation to preserve the evidence at the time the evidence was destroyed; (2) the custodian destroyed the evidence with a culpable state of mind ; and (3) the destroyed evidence was relevant. Id. at *13 (citing Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (3d Cir. 2002). First, the Court addressed whether Cox had an obligation to preserve the recordings as of September A party has an obligation to preserve data if it reasonably anticipates litigation and the data is relevant, likely to lead to discoverable evidence, likely to be requested during discovery, or subject to a pending discovery request. Cottle-Banks,
5 Page WL , at *13. In this case, Cox argued that in September 2010 it was unaware that the recorded customer calls were relevant and worth preserving because regulators had yet to clarify that cable companies have a duty during such calls to obtain customers affirmative agreement to receive set-top boxes and incur an extra charge. Id. at *14. The Court rejected that argument, stating it was immaterial that in September 2010 the law was unclear and finding that Cox should have known that the telephone recordings would have reasonably been requested during discovery, as most customers ordered cable service over the phone. Id. Thus, the Court held that plaintiff had satisfied the first criterion for obtaining an adverse inference instruction. Second, the Court considered whether Cox had acted with a culpable state of mind, which includes bad faith or negligence. Id. On this issue, Judge Curiel concluded that Cox had been negligent, even if Cox had destroyed the tapes due to routine business policy, as Cox had an obligation to preserve the call recording [and] was negligent in failing to preserve the back up tapes. Id. at *15. The Court thus found that plaintiff had satisfied the second criterion for obtaining an adverse inference instruction. Finally, the Court addressed whether the lost tapes were relevant. Id. In a portion of the decision denying plaintiff s motion for class certification, Judge Curiel had reviewed the evidence relating to the 280 produced calls and had concluded that Cox had no uniform policy on disclosure of set-top box fees. Id. at *8. On the sanctions issue, he stated that the plaintiff had produced no evidence that Cox s pre-june 2011 practice for accepting orders over the phone was different from the practice Cox had used in the later calls that Cox had preserved for discovery. Id. The plaintiff claimed that the deleted calls would provide insight about Cox s ordering practices, but Cox offered evidence that its customer service representative training during these two periods did not change. The Court found that the pre-june 2011 recordings were unlikely to have contained relevant evidence, as the later, preserved recordings showed no consistent pattern of Cox customer service representatives failing to disclose the set-top box fees. Id. at *8, *15. The Court therefore held that the deleted recordings were irrelevant and on that basis denied the plaintiff s request for an adverse inference instruction. Judge Curiel also denied the request for a preclusion sanction. Id. at *16. He explained that the plaintiff had failed to show that the lost recordings contained relevant evidence, which meant that plaintiff had not suffered prejudice to warrant such a sanction. Id. As an alternative basis for his ruling, Judge Curiel held that plaintiff s sanction requests were untimely. The plaintiff had learned in a May 24, 2011 deposition that Cox was deleting the call recordings, but waited until February 2012 to request sanctions. Id. The Court found that the delay was too unreasonable to allow sanctions. If you have any questions regarding this update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually work. The E-Discovery Task Force of Sidley Austin LLP The legal framework in litigation for addressing the explosion in electronic communications has been in flux for a number of years. Sidley Austin LLP has established an E-Discovery Task Force to stay abreast of and advise clients on this shifting legal landscape. An interdisciplinary group of more than 25 lawyers across all our domestic offices, the Task Force monitors and examines issues and developments in the law regarding electronic discovery. The Task Force works seamlessly with our firm s Litigators who regularly defend and prosecute all types of litigation matters in trial and appellate courts, federal and state agencies, arbitrations, and mediations throughout the country. The co-chairs of the E-Discovery Task Force are Alan C. Geolot ( , ageolot@sidley.com), Colleen M. Kenney ( , ckenney@sidley.com), and Jeffrey C. Sharer ( , jsharer@sidley.com). To receive future copies of this and other Sidley updates via , please sign up at BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Sidley Austin refers to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships as explained at
June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JUNE 22, 2016 SIDLEY UPDATE June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Southern
More informationOctober s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 20, 2015 October s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Sixth Circuit ruling
More informationE-DISCOVERY UPDATE. October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 1, 2012 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1.
More informationSeptember s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 September s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. a District of
More informationDecember Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
DECEMBER 19, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE December Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationApril s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
April 20, 2017 SIDLEY UPDATE April s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. a wake-up
More informationJune s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
June 19, 2017 SIDLEY UPDATE June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. a U.S. Supreme
More informationFebruary Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE February Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationZubulake Judge Defines Discovery Duties and Spoliation Negligence Standards. January 29, 2010
Zubulake Judge Defines Discovery Duties and Spoliation Negligence Standards January 29, 2010 In an amended order subheaded Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin (SDNY), author
More informationOctober s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 18, 2017 October s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. a Northern District
More informationJanuary s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JANUARY 16, 2018 SIDLEY UPDATE January s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. Dec.
More informationDecember s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
DECEMBER 20, 2017 SIDLEY UPDATE December s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. a
More informationBasic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact
JUNE 23, 2014 SECURITIES LITIGATION UPDATE Basic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact The U.S. Supreme Court this morning, in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317
More information._ )(
Case 1:12-cv-03479-SAS-FM Document 52 Filed 08/15/13 Page 1 of 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK._-------------------------------------------------- )( SEKISUI AMERICAN CORPORATION
More informationELECTRONIC DISCOVERY ISSUES ZUBULAKE REVISITED: SIX YEARS LATER
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY ISSUES ZUBULAKE REVISITED: SIX YEARS LATER Introduction The seminal cases in the area of E-discovery are the Zubulake decisions, which were authored by Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
More informationCOMMENTARY. The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework. Case Background
August 2014 COMMENTARY The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework Spoliation of evidence has, for some time, remained an important topic relating to the discovery
More informationCase 1:09-cv BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5. Plaintiff, : :
Case 109-cv-02672-BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- X CHRIS VAGENOS, Plaintiff,
More informationLITIGATION HOLDS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Litigation Holds: Past, Present and Future Directions JDFSL V10N1 LITIGATION HOLDS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Milton Luoma Metropolitan State University St. Paul, Minnesota Vicki M. Luoma Minnesota
More informationIn , Judge Scheindlin almost single-handedly put e-discovery
Alvin F. Lindsay and Allison C. Stanton Judges rarely, if ever, title their opinions as an author would title a book. When Federal District Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York titles
More informationCrafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It
Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It Janelle L. Davis Thompson & Knight LLP 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 969-1677 Janelle.Davis@tklaw.com
More informationPreservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas
APRIL 19, 2010 Preservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas By Jonathan Redgrave and Amanda Vaccaro In January, Judge Shira Scheindlin provided substantive
More informationSpoliation: New Law, New Dangers. ABA National Legal Malpractice Conference
Spoliation: New Law, New Dangers ABA National Legal Malpractice Conference Speakers Ronald C. Minkoff Partner Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC New York, NY Heather K. Kelly Partner Gordon & Rees, LLP Denver,
More informationDocument Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management Alert
February 2007 Authors: Carolyn M. Branthoover +1.412.355.5902 carolyn.branthoover@klgates.com Karen I. Marryshow +1.412.355.6379 karen.marryshow@klgates.com K&L Gates comprises approximately 1,400 lawyers
More informationSpoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums
Spoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums By Robin Shah (December 21, 2017, 5:07 PM EST) On Dec. 1, 2015, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) was amended with the intent of providing
More informationTGCI LA. FRCP 12/1/15 Changes Key ESI Ones. December Robert D. Brownstone, Esq.
TGCI LA December 2015 FRCP 12/1/15 Changes Key ESI Ones 2 0 1 5 2015 Robert D. Brownstone, Esq. 1 1 Rule 1. Scope and Purpose These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the
More informationBest Practices in Litigation Holds and Document Preservation. Presented by AABANY Litigation Committee
Best Practices in Litigation Holds and Document Preservation Presented by 2017-18 AABANY Litigation Committee Speakers Vince Chang Partner, Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch Connie Montoya Partner, Hinshaw & Culbertson
More informationBy Kevin M. Smith and John Gregory Robinson. Reprinted by permission of Connecticut Lawyer. 16 Connecticut Lawyer July 2011 Visit
By Kevin M. Smith and John Gregory Robinson Reprinted by permission of Connecticut Lawyer 16 Connecticut Lawyer July 2011 Visit www.ctbar.org Lawyers seeking guidance on electronic discovery will find
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 PEARL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 PEARL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007-1312 CHAMBERS OF TEL: (212) 805-0206 JAMES C. FRANCIS IV FAX: (212) 805-7930
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements
Number 1044 June 10, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Second Circuit Wades Into the PSLRA Safe Harbor The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements Specific,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:11-cv-01299-HB-FM Document 206 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GENON MID-ATLANTIC, LLC and GENON CHALK POINT, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No. 11-Civ-1299
More informationA Real Safe Harbor: The Long-Awaited Proposed FRCP Rule 37(e), Its Workings, and Its Guidance for ESI Preservation
BY JAMES S. KURZ DANIEL D. MAULER A Real Safe Harbor: The Long-Awaited Proposed FRCP Rule 37(e), Its Workings, and Its Guidance for ESI Preservation New Rule 37(e) is expected to go into effect Dec. 1
More informationPRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE 2015 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE In House Counsel Conference
1 PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE 2015 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Kenneth L. Racowski Samantha L. Southall Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Philadelphia - Litigation Susan M. Roach Senior
More informationCase 5:15-cv HRL Document 88 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-hrl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of E-filed 0//0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 FIRST FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, LLC, Defendant.
More informationLEGAL SUPERHEROES: VOL 2. MAKING YOU A LEGAL SUPERHERO!
LEGAL SUPERHEROES: VOL 2. MAKING YOU A LEGAL SUPERHERO! Session 7: 3:30-4:30 Presented by Sidley Austin Title: Antitrust Audits as part of a Gold Standard Compliance Program Speakers: Peter Huston, Partner,
More informationLitigation Hold Basics
We Power Life SM Litigation Hold Basics Allyson K. Howie Managing Counsel, Information Governance Entergy Legal Department October 12, 2017 The meaning of the word HOLD 2 Whatis a Litigation Hold? A legal
More informationE-DISCOVERY Will it byte you or your client? COPYRIGHT 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
E-DISCOVERY Will it byte you or your client? COPYRIGHT 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOME TERMINOLOGY TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND Imaged format - files designed to look like a page in the original creating application
More informationAn Orbit Around Pension Committee
An Orbit Around Pension Committee In this Issue Factual Background...1 Preservation Deconstructed...2 Defining Relevance...3 Application to the Facts...4 Key Takeaways...5 In the second issue of Seyfarth
More informationPatent Litigation and Licensing
Federal Circuit Rules on the Duty to Preserve Evidence SUMMARY On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued two opinions addressing the duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of commencing patent litigation.
More informationE-Discovery. Help or Hindrance? NEW FEDERAL RULES ON
BY DAWN M. BERGIN NEW FEDERAL RULES ON E-Discovery Help or Hindrance? E lectronic information is changing the litigation landscape. It is increasing the cost of litigation, consuming increasing amounts
More informationThe Pension Committee Revisited One Year Later
The Pension Committee Revisited One Year Later Welcome and Introductions Brad Harris Vice President of Legal Products, Zapproved Numerous white papers, articles and presentations on legal hold best practices
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV46 ) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & ) RICE, LLP, ) ) Defendant.
More informationELECTRONIC DISCOVERY BASICS. John K. Rubiner and Bonita D. Moore 1. I. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Is Virtually Everything
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY BASICS John K. Rubiner and Bonita D. Moore 1 I. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Is Virtually Everything A. Emails B. Text messages and instant messenger conversations C. Computer
More informationClient Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782
Number 1383 August 13, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Eleventh Circuit Holds That Parties to Private International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals May Seek Discovery Assistance
More informationExpert Q&A on Proving Intent for Spoliation Sanctions Under FRCP 37(e)(2): Developing Case Law
istockphoto.com/cnythzl Expert Q&A on Proving Intent for Spoliation Sanctions Under FRCP 37(e)(2): Developing Case Law Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(e)(2) was amended in 2015 to allow courts
More informationCase Theory and Themes. Preparing to Present Defense. Narrow Legal and Factual Issues
PREPARING FOR TRIAL Case Theory and Themes Preparing to Present Defense Narrow Legal and Factual Issues Trial Logistics Application of the law to the facts of the case. Basis for the legal reasons why
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions
More informationThe New ESI Sanctions Framework under the Proposed Rule 37(e) Amendments. By Philip Favro
The New ESI Sanctions Framework under the Proposed Rule 37(e) Amendments By Philip Favro The debate over the necessity, substance, and form of the proposed ediscovery amendments to the Federal Rules of
More informationSpence International Investments. LLC. eta/. v. the Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/2)
SIDELEYI SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 +1 202 736 8000 +1 202 736 8711 FAX BEIJING HONG KONG SAN FRANCISCO BOSTON HOUSTON SHANGHAI. BRUSSELS LONDON SINGAPORE CENTURY CITY
More informationINFORMATION MANAGEMENT:
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: As cases become more complex and as e-documents abound, how can lawyers, experts and clients, meet the opportunities and challenges of electronic data management? Q. We have your
More informationLaw & Forensics E-Discovery, Forensics, Cyber Security, and Cyber Warfare TM
Law & Forensics E-Discovery, Forensics, Cyber Security, and Cyber Warfare TM ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY IN LEAGUE SPORTS Determining the structure of legal relationships, fiduciary duty, and the famous cases
More informationSubstantial new amendments to the Federal
The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: What Changed and How the Changes Might Affect Your Practice by Rachel A. Hedley, Giles M. Schanen, Jr. and Jennifer Jokerst 1 ARTICLE Substantial
More informationProposed Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States Administrative Office of the United States Courts One Columbus Circle, N.E.
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1147 February 17, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department The Settlement does not affirm or overturn Judge Peck s controversial decision in the US Litigation barring enforcement of
More informationGrasping for a Hold on Ascertainability : The Implicit Requirement for Class Certification and its Evolving Application
26 August 2015 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Consumer Financial Services Class Action Defense Global Government Solutions Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability
More informationFebruary 6, Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation
February 6, 2013 Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Knowing Where You Are Litigating is Half the Battle: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument
More informationA NEW BATTLEGROUND IN CLASS ACTIONS: THE COMMONALITY REQUIREMENT OF RULE 23(a)(2)*
A NEW BATTLEGROUND IN CLASS ACTIONS: THE COMMONALITY REQUIREMENT OF RULE 23(a)(2)* BY JEFFREY E. CRANE The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes 1 has thrust the commonality requirement
More informationCase 4:16-cv Document 80 Filed in TXSD on 08/30/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-03577 Document 80 Filed in TXSD on 08/30/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED
More informationI. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff, AAIpharma, Inc., (hereinafter AAIpharma ), brought suit against defendants,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK < AAIPHARMA INC., : : Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM : OPINION & ORDER - against - : : 02 Civ. 9628 (BSJ) (RLE) KREMERS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CO., et al.,
More informationThe Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation
The Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (In re Charter
More informationImpact of Three Amendments to the Federal Rules related to e-discovery
Impact of Three Amendments to the Federal Rules related to e-discovery Copyright 2015 by K&L Gates LLP. All rights reserved. Tom Kelly K&L GATES LLP e-discovery Analysis & Technology Group November 16,
More informationInternational Arbitration
c International Arbitration F U L B R I G H T A L E R T October 3, 2008 Visit Practice Site Protocol for E-Disclosure in Arbitration Issued Subscribe by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Contact Us
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
-0 Mazzei v. Money Store UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY
More informationLEXSEE 220 F.R.D LAURA ZUBULAKE, Plaintiff, -against- UBS WARBURG LLC, UBS WARBURG, and UBS AG, Defendants. 02 Civ.
Page 1 LEXSEE 220 F.R.D. 212 LAURA ZUBULAKE, Plaintiff, -against- UBS WARBURG LLC, UBS WARBURG, and UBS AG, Defendants. 02 Civ. 1243 (SAS) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
More informationCase 1:13-cv RML Document 53 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 778
Case 1:13-cv-02109-RML Document 53 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 778 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X LUIS PEREZ,
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Mass Litigation May 29-31, 2008 Charleston, South Carolina. Materials on Electronic Discovery
359 ALI-ABA Course of Study Mass Litigation May 29-31, 2008 Charleston, South Carolina Materials on Electronic Discovery By Shira A. Scheindlin Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse New York, New York
More informationWal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions
Wal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions Grace Speights Michael Burkhardt Paul Evans www.morganlewis.com Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, --- S. Ct. ---, 2011 WL 2437013 (June
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Plaintiff, Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DJW/bh SAMUEL K. LIPARI, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS v. U.S. BANCORP, N.A., et al., Plaintiff, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION No. 07-2146-CM-DJW MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter
More informationCase 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817
Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationRecent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016
Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016 History The impetus to change these Rules was the May 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No: 14 C 206 )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., and TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 14 C 206 ATTURO TIRE CORP., and SVIZZ-ONE Judge
More informationDelaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for Stock Corporations
4 January 2017 Practice Group(s): Corporate/M&A Delaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for By Lisa R. Stark and Taylor B. Bartholomew In Solak v. Sarowitz, C.A. No. 12299-CB
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC14-2049 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. CYRUS A. BISCHOFF, Respondent. [March 2, 2017] We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent, Cyrus
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1391 September 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Federal Circuit Holds that Liability for Induced Infringement Requires Infringement of a Patent, But No Single Entity
More informationCase 1:05-cv IMK-JSK Document 338 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:05-cv-00051-IMK-JSK Document 338 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ALLISON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. // Civil Action No.
More informationCase3:14-mc JD Document1 Filed10/30/14 Page1 of 13
Case:-mc-00-JD Document Filed/0/ Page of DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. ANTHONY J WEIBELL, State Bar No. 0 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 0 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 0-0 Telephone:
More informationA Comprehensive Overview: 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
A Comprehensive Overview: 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amii N. Castle* I. INTRODUCTION On December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect that
More informationRecords & Information Management Best Practices for the 21st Century
ATL ARMA RIM 101/201 Spring Seminar Records & Information Management Best Practices for the 21st Century May 6, 2015 Corporate Counsel Opposing Counsel Information Request Silver Bullet Litigation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
Western National Insurance Group v. Hanlon et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, v. CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ., et al., Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
More informationSupreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases
Supreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases In Pair of Rulings, the Supreme Court Relaxes the Federal Circuit Standard for When District Courts May Award Fees in Patent Infringement
More informationUnited States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Order Form (01/2005) Case: 1:10-cv-00761 Document #: 75 Filed: 01/27/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:951 United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Sharon
More informationTitle: The Short Life of a Tort: A Brief History of the Independent Cause of Action for Spoliation of Evidence in California Issue: Oct Year: 2005
Title: The Short Life of a Tort: A Brief History of the Independent Cause of Action for Spoliation of Evidence in California Issue: Oct Year: 2005 The Short Life of a Tort: A Brief History of the Independent
More informationTO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE FEDERAL COURT, VENUE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE FEDERAL COURT, VENUE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Shane A. Lawson, Esq. slawson@gallaghersharp.com I. WHO CAN REMOVE? A. Only Defendants of the Plaintiff s Claims
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 866 May 14, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department The Third Circuit Clarifies the Class Action Fairness Act s Local Controversy Exception to Federal Jurisdiction In addressing
More informationCriminal Defense and Investigations
The Manhattan District Attorney Issues Written Guidelines Prosecutors Must Consult Before Charging Business Entities and Other Organizations SUMMARY On May 27, 2010, the New York County District Attorney
More informationDelaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code
Latham & Watkins Number 1467 February 13, 2013 Finance Department Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Josef S. Athanas, Caroline
More informationTurning Legalese Into Tech Speak: Legal Holds in 2015
Turning Legalese Into Tech Speak: Legal Holds in 2015 Meet the Panelists Moderator Karl Heisler Co-Chair of the Electronic Discovery and Information Governance Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Panelist
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-0-CBM-AJW Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS FLORES, ERICK NUNEZ, JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ, and JUAN TRINIDAD, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT
More informationOctober 10, Re: Proposed Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dear Judge Sutton:
October 10, 2013 Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chair Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Administrative Office of the United States Courts Suite 7-240 Washington, DC, 20544 Re: Proposed Changes
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department
Number 1171 April 7, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano: Changes in Adverse Event Reporting The Court s refusal to adopt a bright-line rule
More informationJeremy Fitzpatrick
Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Jeremy Fitzpatrick 402-231-8756 Jeremy.Fitzpatrick @KutakRock.com December 2015 Amendments December 2015 Amendments Discovery is out of control.
More informationRECENT SPOLIATION CASES A CASE LAW REVIEW
RECENT SPOLIATION CASES A CASE LAW REVIEW WELCOME Thank you for joining Numerous diverse attendees Please feel free to submit questions Slides, recording and survey coming tomorrow SPEAKERS Matthew Verga
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 1090 October 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Recent Legislative Changes Affecting Pending and Future Projects Under CEQA This legislation is intended
More informationEvaluating the Demand Letter
Evaluating the Demand Letter and What To Do After You Receive It May 15, 2018 Christine B. Lucy, Associate General Counsel, Booz Allen Hamilton Deborah Kelly, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Nigel
More informationCase 2:16-cv MVL-DEK Document 154 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.
Case 2:16-cv-11092-MVL-DEK Document 154 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LYNDSAY BLANK CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-11092 TOMORROW PCS, L.L.C., ET AL.
More informationFebruary 18, Dear Committee Members:
David R. Cohen Direct Phone: +1 412 288 1098 Email: drcohen@reedsmith.com Reed Smith LLP Reed Smith Centre 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716 Tel +1 412 288 3131 Fax +1 412 288 3063 reedsmith.com
More informationediscovery Demystified
ediscovery Demystified Presented by: Robin E. Stewart Of Counsel Kansas City Robin.Stewart@KutakRock.com (816) 960-0090 Why Kutak Rock s ediscovery Practice Exists Every case, regardless of size, has an
More informationCase 3:05-cv B-BLM Document 783 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case :0-cv-0-B-BLM Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 ROBERT S. BREWER, JR. (SBN ) JAMES S. MCNEILL (SBN 0) 0 B Street, Suite 00 San Diego, CA 0 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 WILLIAM F. LEE (admitted
More informationThe Normalization of Patent Rights
BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS GENEVA HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. The Normalization of Patent Rights ACC
More informationNew Amendments to the FRCP. Birmingham Bench and Bar Conference March 2016
New Amendments to the FRCP Birmingham Bench and Bar Conference March 2016 Overview The Process of Rule Making The 1983/1993/2000 Amendments The 2006 Amendments The High Points of the 2015 Amendments Four
More informationCase: 1:14-cv Document #: 58 Filed: 11/10/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:314
Case: 1:14-cv-01741 Document #: 58 Filed: 11/10/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:314 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JASON DOUGLAS, individually and on
More information