Tagged: E-Discovery Counsel

The Need for Counsel to Maintain Active Involvement in Discovery: California District Court Sanctions Attorney for Failing to Make “Reasonable Inquiry” as Required by Fed. Rule 26(g)

The Need for Counsel to Maintain Active Involvement in Discovery: California District Court Sanctions Attorney for Failing to Make “Reasonable Inquiry” as Required by Fed. Rule 26(g)

On June 1, 2020, the District Court for the Northern District of California in Optronic Techs., Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Elec. Co., issued a strong reminder to counsel: act in accordance with the obligation to manage and oversee the collection of discovery, or risk running afoul of the attorney certification obligations of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g). In this case, defendant’s attorney signed a certification pursuant to Rule 26(g) as to the completeness of defendant’s responses to discovery requests despite being unaware of what defendant actually did to search for responsive documents. The District Court found the lack of involvement by defendant’s attorney to be worthy of sanctions based on the specific circumstances of the case. Plaintiff sought sanctions concerning defendant’s responses to its post-judgement document requests in a litigation in which defendant had previously been found to have deliberately withheld documents, contradicting certain representations made to the court. Plaintiff did not seek sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 and/or the court’s inherent authority. Plaintiff claimed, among other issues, that defendant’s production was not complete and that defendant’s counsel “had not taken a sufficiently active role” in supervising the collection and production of documents. In response, defendant admitted that its...

A Cloud of Confusion: The EDPA Compels Google to Disclose Data Stored Abroad Under the Stored Communications Act

A Cloud of Confusion: The EDPA Compels Google to Disclose Data Stored Abroad Under the Stored Communications Act

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a departure from the Second Circuit’s Microsoft ruling, recently required Google to comply with search warrants issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), and produce data stored on servers abroad. The Eastern District joins other district courts, including the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Wisconsin, in requiring technology companies to comply with subpoenas or warrants issued pursuant to the SCA and produce internationally-stored data. See In re Two Email Accounts Stored at Google, Inc., No. 17-1234, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101691 (E.D. Wis. June 30, 2017); In re Search of Content that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, No. 16-80263, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59990 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 19, 2017). In In re Google Search Warrants, the court found that Google’s compliance with the government’s warrants required a domestic application of the SCA because the relevant conduct, data retrieval and production, took place at Google’s headquarters in California. In support of its holding, the court distinguished Google’s method of data storage from Microsoft: whereas Microsoft stored its data in different centers abroad, Google breaks its data into “shards,” and “stores the shards in different network locations in different countries...

ESI Guidelines for  the Bankruptcy Case: The ABA’s Electronic Discovery in Bankruptcy Working Group Issues Interim Report 0

ESI Guidelines for the Bankruptcy Case: The ABA’s Electronic Discovery in Bankruptcy Working Group Issues Interim Report

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were updated in 2006 specifically to deal with electronically stored information (“ESI”), Bankruptcy Courts and Bankruptcy practitioners have had little bankruptcy-specific guidelines for managing ESI and electronic discovery issues. As a result, the ABA commissioned the Electronic Discovery (ESI) in Bankruptcy Working Group “to study and prepare guidelines or a best practices report on the scope and timing of a party’s obligation to preserve [ESI] in bankruptcy cases.” On March 15, 2012, the Working Group published their interim report on ESI in bankruptcy cases in an effort to invite and stimulate comments from a wider audience regarding how ESI issues should be handled in (i) large Chapter 11 cases; (ii) middle market and smaller Chapter 11 cases; and (iii) Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases.

Expert Panel Offers Advice On Executing Effective Legal Holds Following Pension Committee, Rimkus and Victor Stanley II At Gibbons Fourth Annual E-Discovery Conference 0

Expert Panel Offers Advice On Executing Effective Legal Holds Following Pension Committee, Rimkus and Victor Stanley II At Gibbons Fourth Annual E-Discovery Conference

The failure to properly implement, monitor and refine legal holds can have devastating results, transforming manageable legal issues into high-stakes nightmares. To offer guidance on avoiding this, on Thursday, October 28, 2010, Gibbons P.C. held its Fourth Annual E-Discovery Conference, where it assembled a panel of experts for a roundtable discussion on legal hold best practices after the issuance this year of three must-read decisions on this topic: Pension Committee, Rimkus and Victor Stanley II.

New York Courts Adopt Preliminary Conference Counsel Readiness Rule for Electronic Discovery 0

New York Courts Adopt Preliminary Conference Counsel Readiness Rule for Electronic Discovery

Earlier this month, the NY Supreme and County courts addressed the topic of electronic discovery at the preliminary conference. The Court issued a Notice amending Section 202.12(b) of the Uniform Rules as well as Rule 1(b) of section 202.70(g) and requiring that in any case “reasonably likely to include electronic discovery” counsel must come to court “sufficiently versed in matters relating to their clients’ technological systems to discuss competently all issues relating to electronic discovery” and may bring a client representative or outside expert to assist in such discussion.