They List Their 10 Key E-Discovery Issues for 2011. Available for reading in the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (April 3, 2011 release) is an article “10 Key E-Discovery Issues in 2011: Expert Insight to Manage Successfully” written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck (S.D.N.Y.) and attorney David J. Lender (a partner at Weil, Gotshal […]
You Gotta Read On To See What Happens. This one started out badly for attorney. A trial judge imposed three types of awards against plaintiff”s attorney: (1) a $2,035 award for partial discovery referee expenses; (2) a $2,335 award for plaintiff’s deposition nonappearance; and (3) a CCP § 177.5 award of $1,500 for
First District, Division 4 Finds Sanctions Proper Under CCP § 2023.030(a). We do not see that many e-discovery sanction cases at the state level, with most of the law being decided by federal courts–notwithstanding that the Evidence Code definition of “writing” does include electronic information. Here is one where a $13,500 discovery sanction
Opinion Arose From FOIA Productions by Federal Government; Cost Shifting Is Indicated As the Usual Rule in Production “Do-Overs.” U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, on February 7, 2011, issued yet another important opinion in the e-discovery area. (She is truly a pioneering jurist in this regard, authoring several of the groundbreaking electronic discovery
Losing Party Unsuccessfully Sought to Regulate Deposition Conduct of Opposing Counsel. Civil litigators have seen it often–an opposing attorney who overuses privilege objections, instructs deponents not to answer based on nonprivileged grounds, coaches the witness through speaking objections or interruptive conferences outside of the deposition, or insults counsel taking the depositions. Apparently, plaintiff
U.S. Magistrate Judge Grimm Had Earlier Ordered Imprisonment If Payment Ducked, But Defense Did Remit Partial Payment Of What Was Ordered. In our September 21, 2010 post, we discussed Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497 (D. Md. 2010), in which U.S. Magistrate Judge Grimm determined that defendants repeatedly failed to
Degeer v. Gillis Examines Factors to be Weighted For Shifting Costs in Third Party Electronic Discovery Disputes. In Degeer v. Gillis, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129745 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010), U.S. District Judge Nan R. Nolan examines the obligations of parties and non-parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 as it
Level of Culpability and Prejudice Are Still Key Factors Driving Sanctions Awards. Just as we are giving you our top 20 attorney’s fees decisional redux for 2010, Williams Mullen, a 300-attorney firm with offices in Virginia, North Carolina, D.C. and London, has posted a December 17, 2010 Alert that provides a nice summary of
Third District Finds Substantial Justification for Sanctioned Parties’ Position, Many of Which Involved Attorney-Client Privilege Concerns. Although involving a convoluted set of facts for which we will only give you the “Reader’s Digest” version, Truckee Carson Irrig. Dist. v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., Case No. C061004 (3d Dist. Nov. 9, 2010) (unpublished) does
Court of Appeal Did Not Condone Keeping OSC Contempt Hearing On Calendar With No Intent to Proceed. The next one is an object lesson, likely reinforcing that sanctions can follow from not showing professional courtesy–at the least. In Marriage of Booth, Case No. A127140 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2010) (unpublished), wife’s
