Legal Separateness: The Boundaries on Written Discovery
Minding Your Business | E-Discovery
by Joan Kim
5M ago
The concept of corporate legal separateness has long been a fortress protecting affiliated business entities such as parents, subsidiaries, and sister companies from various kinds of liability and litigation. However, how much protection does such legal separateness offer the information that corporations gather and store when faced with vehicles of written discovery such as interrogatory requests or requests for production? In other words, if an opposing party requests information or documents from a party that requires that party to seek information or documents from an affiliated non-party ..read more
Visit website
The Sound of “Silent Attorneys”: Judge Orders Google to Re-Review Emails Withheld for Privilege to which Counsel Never Responded
Minding Your Business | E-Discovery
by Julia M. Ansanelli
1y ago
Back in May, we wrote about a pending motion before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which the U.S. Department of Justice and several state attorneys general (“DOJ Plaintiffs”) sought to sanction Defendant Google and compel disclosure of all emails withheld for privilege that legal counsel received but never responded to (affectionately referred to as “silent attorney” emails).  The DOJ Plaintiffs claimed the silent attorney emails constituted artificial requests for legal advice intended to conceal sensitive business communications from discovery.  After the ..read more
Visit website
E-cigs & E-discovery: When Marriage Cannot Save Sloppy Document Productions
Minding Your Business | E-Discovery
by Yena Hong
1y ago
What began as a trademark infringement dispute concerning electronic cigarettes has evolved into a never-ending series of discovery issues, and lessons about the limits of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and privilege waivers. DR Distributors, LLC filed its initial complaint against 21 Century Smoking, Inc and its owner, Brent Duke, in September 2012 alleging trademark violations. The defendants filed their counterclaim also alleging trademark violations about a month later. Though fact discovery was supposed to have ended in 2015, the parties continued to assert problems with discovery seve ..read more
Visit website
The Sound of “Silent Attorneys”: DOJ Alleges Google Fakes Attorney-Client Privilege by CCing Lawyers Who Never Respond
Minding Your Business | E-Discovery
by Julia M. Ansanelli
2y ago
If a request for legal advice goes unanswered, is it really a request for legal advice?  According to the U.S. Department of Justice and several state attorneys general (“DOJ Plaintiffs”) in an antitrust action against Google, United States, et. al. v. Google, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the answer to this question should be “no,” at least where the unanswered request for legal advice is part of an internal company practice intended to conceal sensitive, non-privileged documents from discovery. The DOJ Plaintiffs’ recent motion to sanction Google and compel di ..read more
Visit website
Use of Technology Assisted Review Finds Support in Northern District of Illinois
Minding Your Business | E-Discovery
by Laura Stafford
3y ago
In a recent order from Livingston v. City of Chicago, Magistrate Judge Young Kim of the Northern District of Illinois provided useful guidance to litigants in the use of technology assisted review, or TAR. Importantly, Judge Kim affirmed what is known as “Sedona Principle Six,” the notion that a responding party is in the best position to design and evaluate procedures for preserving and producing its own electronically stored information, or ESI.    The high cost of communications review remains a pressing challenge in complex civil cases. TAR is a critical tool for managing these c ..read more
Visit website

Follow Minding Your Business | E-Discovery on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR