TAR: You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby

Prior to Judge Peck’s recent buzzworthy TAR opinion, TAR’s presence was also noteworthy in two other cases: Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. IBM Corporation and Connecticut General Life Insurance v. Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. In both, the discussion wasn’t “if” TAR was a valid method and could be used but, rather, “how” and what checks needed […]

Enjoy and Share:

LTNY 2015: “What’s Wrong with Discovery?” and More

At this year’s LTNY, Judges John Facciola (retired), Andrew J. Peck, Frank Maas and Elizabeth D. LaPorte treated eager attendees to their highly regarded opinions during the “What’s Wrong with Discovery?” session. The judges acted as panelists tasked with reflecting on the topic of e-Discovery. Why has it become so risky and expensive and, therefore, […]

Enjoy and Share:

Paper Chase: Failure to Follow Rule 34

As Judge Paul S. Grewal stated in his order re: motion to compel in Venture Corporation LTD, et al., v. James P. Barrett, while many law professionals may not be familiar with the more obscure Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ex: Stenographic Transcript as Evidence), they should know Rule 34 well. Such was not the […]

Enjoy and Share:

Judge Facciola Schools Students on the Disruptive Changes Affecting e-Discovery

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola, who has served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia since 1997, spoke to a class of law students at the University of Florida Levin College of Law about Technology and eDiscovery Competence.

The Judge reflected on what he has seen over the last 17 years.

According […]

Enjoy and Share:

Cause for Celebration: Rule 26(f)

As we enter August, we anticipate a notable inaugural anniversary next month: the proposed Pilot pertaining to the Model ESI Discovery Order and Checklist for Rule 26(f). Initiated by the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, this checklist has already proven to be a valuable, sustainable and reasonable method for ensuring the […]

Enjoy and Share:

It’s Done: Amendment to Rule 37(e) Revised and Approved

On April 10 and 11, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules met in Portland, Ore., to review proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and make key final decisions. Of particular significance was the work around Rule 37(e), also known as the “safe harbor” provision.

As the Discovery Subcommittee Report on Rule 37(e) […]

Enjoy and Share:
©2012, LLM, Inc.
115 East Fifth Street, Suite 200 | Austin, Texas 78701 | Toll free - 877-820-8308 | Local/International - 210-820-0137 | Fax - 210-820-8391 | Contact Us >