September s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
|
|
- Lawrence Allen
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 Wyoming case addressing the boundaries of legitimate social media discovery in ruling that a personal injury plaintiff had to produce her Facebook account history from the date of the accident onward to the extent such posts related to significant emotional turmoil, the accident and its aftermath, or any of plaintiff s resulting physical or emotional injuries 2. a Northern District of Iowa case resolving a dispute over defendants refusal to produce allegedly nonresponsive documents identified by search terms by requiring defendants to produce such documents on an attorneys eyes only basis without an admission of relevance, at which point plaintiff would review the allegedly nonresponsive documents at its expense and could seek sanctions if it identified responsive documents 3. an Eastern District of North Carolina opinion denying plaintiff s spoliation sanctions motion claiming that defendant violated Rule 37(e) by failing to preserve internet web browser and search history 4. an Eastern District of New York decision ordering shifting a portion of plaintiff s production costs to defendant to level the playing field after finding that plaintiff s counsel had not engaged in a meaningful meet-and-confer process concerning the terms of an agreed electronically stored information (ESI) protocol and had not thoroughly reviewed the protocol before signing it 1. In Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc., 2017 WL (D. Wyo. May 10, 2017), Magistrate Judge Mark L. Carman discussed the boundaries of legitimate social media discovery in ruling that a personal injury plaintiff had to produce her Facebook account history from the date of the accident onward to the extent such posts related to 1) significant emotional turmoil or mental disability or significant events reasonably expected to result in emotional distress; 2) the accident and its aftermath or any of her resulting physical or emotional injuries or 3) plaintiff s level of activity after the accident. Defendant TGR Logistics, Inc. had requested the history of the plaintiff s Facebook accounts dating back three years before the accident. At the time of the request, plaintiff had already delivered Facebook information pertaining to a set of relevant keywords requested by the defendant. Plaintiff responded that the additional request for three years of Facebook information was unduly burdensome and invasive, and defendant moved to compel the production of this Facebook account information. Id. at *1. 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 Ave., New York, NY 10019, ; 1 S. Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, ; and 1501 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20005,
2 Page 2 In considering defendant s motion to compel, Magistrate Judge Carman focused on the challenges posed by social media on discovery, noting that [m]ore data has been created in the last two years than in the entire history of the human race and the amount of data is predicted to grow 10-fold by Id. at *2 (citation omitted). Because of this ever-expanding source of ESI, the magistrate judge stated that limiting the scope of discovery would be difficult. The magistrate judge observed that in cases concerning an individual s physical or mental health, almost any social media post could provide some sort of relevant information or insight into that person s thought process. At the same time, the magistrate judge also stated that allowing broad discovery of social media activity created the likelihood that more information will be disclosed than has historically occurred in civil litigation. The magistrate judge noted that simply because information is easily and inexpensively obtainable does not mean that it is discoverable and that courts have long denied discovery of information which was easy to obtain, but which was not discoverable. Id. at *3. On this point, the magistrate judge cited Rule 26(c)(1) allowing courts to limit discovery to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The magistrate judge said that he must balance these realities regarding the discovery of social media. Specifically, there was the substantial risk that legitimately injured plaintiffs would abandon their claims due to the fear of humiliation from disclosure of their social media history. On the other hand, information in social media posts showing that a plaintiff is lying or exaggerating his or her injuries should not be protected from disclosure. For context, the magistrate judge looked to several cases in which the plaintiffs had to establish emotional distress. Id. at *4-*5. While those cases involved similar claims, the case at hand presented more of the garden variety emotional distress claim that parties had addressed effectively for many years without relying on social media. Similarly, plaintiff s alleged traumatic brain injury was subject to evaluation and diagnosis by experts, and therefore the defendant could formulate arguments without relying on Facebook posts for proof. Accordingly, the magistrate judge rejected as exaggerated defendant s claim that it could not defend itself against plaintiff s damages claims without access to the pre-accident Facebook history. While the magistrate judge suggested that defendant s request for three years of Facebook posts predating the accident was too broad, he also recognized the need for relevant information about the plaintiff s mental state and cognitive ability after the accident. For this reason, the magistrate judge granted the motion to compel in part but limited the production to her Facebook account history from the date of the accident onward to the extent that such posts related to 1) significant emotional turmoil, mental distress, or significant events that could reasonably be expected to result in emotional distress; 2) the accident, its aftermath and any of plaintiff s physical injuries related thereto; or 3) plaintiff s level of activity after the accident. Id. 2. In Nachurs Alpine Solutions, Corp. v. Banks, 2017 WL (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2017), Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams resolved a dispute over defendants refusal to produce documents identified by search terms they regarded as nonresponsive by ordering defendants to produce the allegedly nonresponsive documents to plaintiff on an attorneys eyes only basis without an admission of relevance, at which point plaintiff would review the
3 Page 3 allegedly nonresponsive documents at its expense and could seek sanctions if it identified responsive documents. In this employee trade secret litigation, the chief magistrate judge entered an ESI order outlining a list of search terms defendants would use in identifying ESI to be reviewed for privilege, duplication and relevance. Id. at *1. In the course of reviewing the search term results and producing ESI, defendants withheld documents as nonresponsive and outside the scope of discovery. Over the course of two productions, defendants produced approximately 12,000 documents and withheld approximately 44,000 documents as nonresponsive. Plaintiff took issue with the withholding of documents as nonresponsive, and the parties tried to resolve the dispute without court intervention. Defendants initially agreed to produce nonresponsive documents from the second production on the condition that the documents would be designated as attorneys eyes only and the production would not serve as an admission that the documents were responsive. Id. at *2. Plaintiff found this compromise unacceptable and moved to compel. Plaintiff identified four categories of documents that it regarded as responsive and 28 categories of documents that it agreed were nonresponsive. Plaintiff moved to compel production of all documents not falling within the 28 nonresponsive categories and to have defendants bear the costs of undertaking a second review of the documents. Chief Magistrate Judge Williams applied Rule 26(b)(1) and balanced several countervailing factors regarding plaintiff s motion to compel. Id. at *4. He noted that there was at least a colorable prima facie showing that some of the withheld documents were relevant because they contained at least one of the search terms outlined in the ESI order. On the other hand, defendants counsel had already reviewed the documents and represented that they were nonresponsive. Chief Magistrate Judge Williams accepted that defendants counsel had marked the documents as nonresponsive in good faith as officers of the court. In addition, plaintiff had made a weak showing that any of the withheld documents were relevant because defendants had shown that the few examples plaintiff cited were either nonresponsive or already produced elsewhere. Finally, the chief magistrate judge noted that his confidence in defendants response was affected by his conclusion that the defendants had previously not complied with discovery obligations. Based on these factors, Chief Magistrate Judge Williams held that it would be disproportional to require defendants to re-review all the withheld documents based on plaintiff s various categories of documents. Instead, he ordered defendants to produce all nonresponsive ESI on an attorneys eyes only basis without admitting that the documents were relevant. Plaintiff would then bear its own costs in reviewing the documents, and should plaintiff discover relevant materials wrongfully withheld from production, plaintiff would be free to bring a motion for sanctions. 3. In Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 2017 WL (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017), Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones Jr. denied plaintiff s request for spoliation sanctions based on defendant s failure to preserve internet web browser and search history. Plaintiff, an investor in defendant s biopharmaceutical company, alleged that defendant defamed him in an investor presentation after plaintiff announced an intention to run for a company board seat. Id. at *1. Following the presentation, plaintiff sent a letter to defendant and its board members demanding an immediate apology and retraction. Id. at *2. A few weeks later, plaintiff filed the present lawsuit, after which defendant issued a
4 Page 4 litigation hold requiring preservation of all documents relating to plaintiff and defendant s public statements and filings related to plaintiff. The hold notice defined documents to include ESI and advised employees to err on the side of preservation but did not explicitly reference internet browser history, search history or internet sites visited. Three weeks after issuance of the hold notice, plaintiff sent defendant a letter request to preserve, among other things, the web browser and search histories of individuals involved in drafting the investor presentation. Plaintiff later served written discovery requests seeking the web browser and search history of the persons involved in the presentation. Id. at *3. Defendant subsequently informed plaintiff that although defendant had issued a litigation hold, the hold notice did not identify web browser and search history. In addition, plaintiff stated that its internet browser, Google Chrome, automatically deleted web browser and search history after 90 days and that Chrome had already deleted the requested information prior to receipt of plaintiff s preservation letter. Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions and an adverse jury instruction related to defendant s failure to preserve the web browser and search history. Magistrate Judge Jones concluded that plaintiff had not made a sufficient showing to warrant an adverse jury instruction. Id. at *4. As Magistrate Judge Jones explained, before a court may impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e), the court must find that (1) ESI should have been preserved, (2) ESI was lost; (3) the loss was due to a party s failure to take reasonable steps to preserve the ESI; and (4) the ESI cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery. Once those elements are satisfied, the court may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1). Alternatively, upon a finding that a party acted with the intent to deprive, the court may (1) presume the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (2) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (3) dismiss the action in its entirety or enter a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Jones held that plaintiff had failed to show that the ESI could not be replaced through additional discovery. Id. at *5. Though the browser and search history had been deleted, plaintiff could obtain information through depositions regarding the internet sources reviewed by defendant s employees when drafting the investor preservation. Even assuming that the threshold elements of Rule 37(e) were satisfied, Magistrate Judge Jones further ruled that plaintiff had failed to make a sufficient showing of prejudice to justify court intervention under Rule 37(e)(1) and had failed to show the intent to deprive necessary for plaintiff s requested jury instruction under Rule 37(e)(2). As to prejudice, plaintiff had simply argued in a cursory fashion that the web browser and search history were likely the most important evidence in making its case. Though further discovery may inform the extent of prejudice to plaintiff, if any, Magistrate Judge Jones held that plaintiff was not entitled to a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1). With respect to the requested adverse jury instruction, plaintiff made no argument as to how defendant acted with an intent to deprive plaintiff of the web browser and search history. Magistrate Judge Jones noted that plaintiff did not have a formal document retention and destruction policy and was unaware of Google Chrome s default deletion settings. In addition, plaintiff promptly issued a litigation hold after plaintiff filed his complaint, and by the time plaintiff requested web browser and search history, that information had already been deleted. Plaintiff argued that defendant should have issued a litigation hold as soon as plaintiff demanded a retraction of the presentation, but Magistrate Judge Jones found that this would demonstrate, at best, negligence on defendant s part. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Jones denied plaintiff s request for sanctions relating for defendant s failure to preserve the internet website and browser history relating to the allegedly defamatory presentation.
5 Page 5 4. In Bailey v. Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center, 2017 WL (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017), U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen Tomlinson shifted a portion of plaintiff s production costs to defendant to level the playing field after finding that plaintiff s counsel had not engaged in a meaningful meetand-confer process concerning the terms of an agreed ESI protocol and had not thoroughly reviewed the protocol before signing it. In conjunction with the Rule 26(f) discovery conference, the parties negotiated, executed and jointly submitted an ESI protocol to the court. Id. at *1. Several months after entry of the ESI protocol, plaintiff s counsel sought to undo various provisions of the ESI agreement because it would be unduly burdensome and costly to produce documents in the manner set forth in the order. In response, the court directed plaintiff s counsel to get a cost estimate from an outside vendor and provide an affidavit setting forth the basis of the economic hardship claim. Thereafter, plaintiff s counsel submitted a motion with supporting affidavit to shift discovery costs, claiming that ESI discovery would cost $2,000 to $3,000, and this expense would cause plaintiff to experience severe financial hardship as he is the only working member of [his] family and earns roughly $90,000 per year. Defendants filed an opposition to the cost shifting request. The magistrate judge cited the general rule that the responding party bears all such costs (citing Rowe Entm t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 421, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)) but noted that the court may, under limited circumstances, shift production expenses to the requesting party in case of undue burden or expense. Id. at *3-*4. The magistrate judge acknowledged that no evidence had been produced suggesting that the information sought by defendants was inaccessible, and therefore production would not be so unduly burdensome or expensive as to justify deviating from the general rule requiring the producing party to bear the expense of production. The magistrate judge stated that this point was not dispositive, however, and noted that the parties did not adequately meet and confer to develop a discovery plan and that defendants were insisting on production in the format set forth in the ESI protocol. Magistrate Judge Tomlinson also observed that the ESI agreement was not properly tailored to the needs of this case, being a precedent used in corporate settings as opposed to a single-plaintiff employment discrimination case. Id. at *5. The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff s counsel did not engage in meaningful discussions with his client regarding the agreement s terms and costs in producing the information in defendants requested format. In a similar vein, she also found that plaintiff s counsel did not engage in a meaningful meet-and-confer process with opposing counsel concerning the ESI agreement, nor did he thoroughly review the agreement (or consider its ramifications) before signing it. Magistrate Judge Tomlinson ruled that she did not have sufficient grounds to rescind the agreement and instead concluded that a measure of partial cost-shifting was appropriate to level the playing field in this case given the issues with the ESI protocol, the inadequate meet-and-confer process and defendant s insistence on production in accordance with the protocol s terms. Specifically, the magistrate judge directed that 40 percent of the plaintiff s ESI production costs would be borne by defendants, while the remaining 60 percent would be plaintiff s responsibility.
6 Page 6 If you have any questions regarding this Sidley Update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually work. Sidley E-Discovery Task Force 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), Robert D. Keeling ( , rkeeling@sidley.com) and Colleen M. Kenney ( , ckenney@sidley.com). To receive Sidley Updates, please subscribe at BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CENTURY CITY CHICAGO DALLAS GENEVA HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES MUNICH NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Sidley and Sidley Austin refer 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 informationOctober Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
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:
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationThe 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Boston Bar Association Commercial and Business Litigation Section December 7, 2015 Paula M. Bagger, Cooke Clancy & Gruenthal LLP Gregory S. Bombard,
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationCase 3:12-cv L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769
Case 3:12-cv-00853-L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MANUFACTURERS COLLECTION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff,
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 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 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 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 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 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 information231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 1 Definition No. 5 provides that identify when used in regard to a communication includes providing the substance of the communication.
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 informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 380. Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 H 1 HOUSE BILL 0 Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information. (Public) Sponsors: Representatives Glazier, T. Moore, Ross, and Jordan (Primary Sponsors).
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 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 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 7:16-cv D Document 115 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:16-CV-18-D FREDERIC N. ESHELMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) ORDER PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant.
More informationPROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rule 1. Scope and Purpose These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts,
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 informationCase: 4:15-cv NCC Doc. #: 61 Filed: 04/21/16 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 238
Case: 4:15-cv-01096-NCC Doc. #: 61 Filed: 04/21/16 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 238 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ALECIA RHONE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 4:15-cv-01096-NCC
More informationMark D. Baute, Jeffrey Alan Tidus, Baute & Tidus LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants. ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. BOB BARKER COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. FERGUSON SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants. No. C 04 04813 JW (RS). March 9, 2006. Donald
More informationDiscovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law
Discovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law Michael Grow Arent Fox LLP, Washington D.C., United States Summary and Outline Parties to civil actions or inter partes proceedings before the United
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 informationUpdate on 2015 Amendments to the FRCP
Update on 2015 Amendments to the FRCP The Honorable Jon P. McCalla, U.S. District Judge October 28, 2016 Annual Federal Practice Seminar University of Memphis Law School I. Overview Eleven Federal Rules
More informationCase 1:07-mc GBL-BRP Document 21 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:07-mc-00034-GBL-BRP Document 21 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION IN RE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO AOL, LLC
More informationReining in the Costs of E-Discovery: Amendments to Federal Rules & Where We Are Headed
ACC Litigation Committee Quick Hit Reining in the Costs of E-Discovery: Amendments to Federal Rules & Where We Are Headed Ignatius A. Grande Twitter: @igrande March 25, 2014 Rules Amendment Process After
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JONES DAY, ) Case No.: 08CV4572 a General Partnership, ) ) Judge John Darrah Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BlockShopper
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 informationRecord Retention Program Overview
Business/Employee Record Retention and Production: Strategies for Effective and Efficient Record Retention Business & Commercial Litigation Seminar Peoria, Illinois January 17, 2013 Presented by: Brad
More informationCase 3:16-cv AWT Document 69 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 316-cv-00614-AWT Document 69 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ------------------------------x SCOTT MIRMINA Civil No. 316CV00614(AWT) v. GENPACT LLC
More informationPART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to
More informationUse and abuse of anti-arbitration injunctions: strategies in dealing with anti-arbitration injunctions
Use and abuse of anti-arbitration injunctions: strategies in dealing with anti-arbitration injunctions Court assistance in international arbitration how to use it wisely and efficiently Anti-suit and anti-arbitration
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 informationASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING PRIVILEGES UNDER THE NEW RULES OF DISCOVERY
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW FOUNDATION CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION ADVANCED CIVIL DISCOVERY UNDER THE NEW RULES June 1-2, 2000 Dallas, Texas June 8-9, 2000 Houston, Texas ASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING
More informationNew York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements
New York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements April 26, 2010 New York s highest court recently decided a case of first impression
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 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 informationCase5:12-cv LHK Document501 Filed05/09/13 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-000-LHK Document0 Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 APPLE INC., a California corporation v. Plaintiff, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND
LC0 00 -- S STATE OF RHODE ISLAND IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 00 A N A C T RELATING TO COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEDURE - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Introduced By: Senators Polisena, Roberts, Sosnowski,
More informationINVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS Wes Bearden, CEO Attorney & Licensed Investigator Bearden Investigative Agency, Inc. www.beardeninvestigations.com PRIVILEGE KEY POINTS WE ALL KNOW
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 informationRule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ]
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ] (a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter. (1) Initial Disclosures. Except to the extent
More informationFreedom of Information Act Request: Mobile Biometric Devices and Applications
51 LOUISIANA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001.2113 TELEPHONE: +1.202.879.3939 FACSIMILE: +1.202.626.1700 Direct Number: (202) 879-3437 smlevine@jonesday.com VIA E-MAIL: ICE-FOIA@DHS.GOV U.S. Immigration
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before
More informationA Dialogue with Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
A Dialogue with Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin Shira A. Scheindlin served for twenty-two years as a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. During her tenure
More informationIs 'Proportionality' the Most Important Change In The 2015 Rule Amendments?
Is 'Proportionality' the Most Important Change In The 2015 Rule Amendments? Robert E. Bartkus, New Jersey Law Journal December 30, 2015 Call me a skeptic, but I sense that the current discussions surrounding
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 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 informationAGRICULTURE. Side-by-Side Chart Agriculture
3 July 2013 AGRICULTURE Side-by-Side Chart Agriculture SAFEGUARD MEASURES http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lexuriserv/lexuriserv.do?uri=oj:l:2011:127:0006:1343:en:pdf http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/korus/asset_upload_file288_12699.pdf
More informationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
1 of 7 10/10/2005 11:14 AM Federal Rules of Civil Procedure collection home tell me more donate search V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 26. Prev Next Notes Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery;
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationCase3:12-mc CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5. October 4, Chevron v. Donziger, 12-mc CRB (NC) Motion to Compel
Case3:12-mc-80237-CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5 555 CALIFORNIA STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE: +1.415.626.3939 FACSIMILE: +1.415.875.5700 VIA ECF United States District
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ASUS COMPUTER INT L, v. Plaintiff, MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Defendant. SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL;
More informationThe Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving Fees
To read the decision in Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., please click here. The Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving
More informationCase 2:10-cv ES-SCM Document 42 Filed 03/25/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 338 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:10-cv-01090-ES-SCM Document 42 Filed 03/25/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 338 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [D.E. 33] FRANK GATTO, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.: 10-cv-1090-ES-SCM
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 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. CONSENT OF DEFENDANT SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Case 1:08-cv-02167-RJL Document 1-2 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Commission, 100 F. Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20549,
More informationThe SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant
What is it? The SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. When Spoliation has
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 informationCONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS 2012 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS When Congress investigates, even the most sophisticated businesses feel as though they have fallen through the looking glass. The rules of
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 informationPROTECTING AND PIERCING PRIVILEGE
PROTECTING AND PIERCING PRIVILEGE DAVID E. KELTNER JOSE, HENRY, BRANTLEY & KELTNER, L.L.P. FORT WORTH, TEXAS 817.877.3303 keltner@jhbk.com 23rd Annual Advanced Civil Trial Course Houston, August 30 September
More informationMEMORANDUM. Judge Jeffrey Sutton Chair, Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure
COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544 JEFFREY S. SUTTON CHAIR JONATHAN C. ROSE SECRETARY CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES STEVEN
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 informationLA. REV. STAT. ANN. 9:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]: (1) Arbitration organization means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration
More informationShawn Oller. Focus Areas. Overview
Office Managing Shareholder Camelback Esplanade 2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900 85016 main: (602) 474-3600 direct: (602) 474-3608 fax: (602) 957-1801 soller@littler.com 201 Third Street NW Suite 500
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 informationSECURITIES INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION
SECURITIES INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION Michael Delikat mdelikat@orrick.com Jill Rosenberg jrosenberg@orrick.com Lisa Lupion llupion@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 W 52 nd Street New
More informationThe attorney-client privilege
BY TIMOTHY J. MILLER AND ANDREW P. SHELBY TIMOTHY J. MILLER is partner and general counsel at Novack and Macey LLP. As co-chair of the firm s legal malpractice defense group, he represents law firms and
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 informationClient Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background
Number 1447 January 2, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice Steps taken by parties on the eve of filing for bankruptcy are likely
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 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 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 informationR in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers
R-17-0010 in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers R-17-0010 was a rule petition filed by the Supreme Court s Committee on Civil Justice Reform in January 2017. The Supreme Court s Order in R-17-0010,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al Doc. 1 GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES James A. Lowe (SBN Brian S. Edwards (SBN 00 Von Karman, Suite 00 Irvine, California 1 Telephone: ( - Facsimile:
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT
Case: 1:09-cv-03039 Document #: 94 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:953 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT SARA LEE CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationCOMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION DIVISION PROCEDURES FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION DIVISION PROCEDURES FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA SECTION 1 PHILOSOPHY, SCOPE AND GOALS 1.1 - Citation to Procedure 1.2
More information