Catagory:Market Announcements

State v. M.A., 954 A.2d 503 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)

In this case of first impression in New Jersey, defendant argued that personal information found on his work computers should be suppressed because his employer had no authority to consent to the search.  Defendant argued that he, not his employer, owned the computers and that he therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the personal information stored on them.  Finding that the employer, in fact, owned the computers and therefore had every right to consent to the search, the court denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

Read More

At the 2008 Vestige Annual E-Discovery Awards Gala in Cleveland, Ohio, on November 1, 2008, David Cohen, a K&L Gates Partner, received a "2008 ESI Technology Champion" award.  David was 1 of 4 award winners, out of over 80 lawyers, judges and consultants nominated for the awards.  He is based in the Pittsburgh office and co-chair of the firm’s e-DAT practice group.

The panel of 5 Judges included several lawyers, a forensic expert and a U.S. District Court Magistrate.  The Awards Gala was a black tie event held at the Renaissance Hotel in Cleveland.  The Honorable Thomas J. Moyer, Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, served as the Keynote Speaker.

Read More

Available now from PBI Press, e-Discovery provides guidance for practitioners of all levels of experience through the often complicated world of e-discovery.

Once again showcasing the depth of knowledge at the firm, four of the fifteen contributing authors to the publication are members of the K&L Gates e-Discovery Analysis and Technology Group.  Those members are Tom Smith, David Cohen, Daniel Miller, and Lynn Reilly.

To learn more about this valuable resource or to purchase a copy of your own, click here. 

For the first time, the SEC has released its Enforcement Manual, also known as the "Red Book” to the public.  Although the manual is intended to provide guidance to members of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, it is a valuable resource for anyone involved in a SEC investigation.

Several sections address the topic of electronic information.  For example, section 3.2.6.2, “Form of Production,” provides a detailed explanation of what is expected of those responding to an SEC subpoena, including a discussion of the SEC’s preference for electronic production.  Section 3.2.6.2.3, “Format for Electronic Production of Documents to the SEC,” provides even greater detail regarding the production of electronic information.  The manual also provides valuable guidance on privilege logs, bates stamping, records certifications and much more.

The full text of the Enforcement Manual is available here.
 

Effective January 1, 2008, amended Local Rule 16.1 specifies appropriate topics for consideration at the Initial Pretrial Conference, including the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”).

Click on the following link to see amended rule:

Local Civil Rule 16.1 Pretrial Conferences (see subpart (G) Initial Pretrial Conference)

For a complete listing of local federal rules and guidelines addressing electronic discovery, see our updated post here.
 

Star, Inc. v. QFA Royalties LLC, No. 07-cv-02223-WYD-CBS (D. Colo. Filed Oct. 10, 2007)

In this case, the court granted an unopposed motion of the defendant to enter an order governing electronic discovery.  The proposed order adopted by the court was intended to “expedite the flow of discovery material and facilitate prompt resolution of disputes over production of electronic materials…”  Included in the order was a provision requiring each party to identify an “e-discovery liaison” through whom all discovery requests and responses would be made as well as provisions providing instruction regarding search methodology, timing of discovery, format of production, privilege review, document retention and costs.

A copy of the motion and proposed order is available here.

A copy of the court’s order is available here.
 

The Supreme Court of Ohio has adopted several amendments to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, including several related to electronic discovery.  The amendments, which took effect on July 1, 2008, include changes to Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45.  According to the Supreme Court’s press release, key amendments include:

clarifying that issues related to electronically stored information are appropriate topics for resolution during pretrial conferences; clarifying that discovery of electronically stored information is permitted; amending to provide factors a judge should consider in determining sanctions when a party has destroyed potentially relevant electronically stored information; and specifying that a subpoena may be used to obtain electronically stored information from nonparties.

View Ohio’s amended rules here.

For a current list of all states that have enacted special e-discovery rules, see our updated post here.

On September 27, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed Assembly Bill 926 (Evans), which contained e-discovery amendments to California’s Civil Discovery Act .  In his veto message, the Governor explained:

The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the year’s legislative session.  Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest priority for California.  This bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time.

The amendments included in AB 926 closely tracked several of the 2006 e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Among other things, the amendments:

Read More

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05-CV-1958-B (BLM), United States District Court for the Southern District of California

On September 16, 2008, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major set a briefing schedule for the five pending discovery motions filed by the parties, requiring any oppositions to be filed on or before October 3, and any replies to be filed on or before October 10, 2008.  The discovery motions include Broadcom Corporation’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Qualcomm; three separate motions brought by the sanctioned attorneys to compel production of documents by Qualcomm, and Qualcomm’s Motion for a Protective Order.  Magistrate Judge Major will conduct a hearing on the motions on October 29, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.

Assembly Bill 926 (Evans):  Passed the Senate July 10, 2008; Passed the Assembly August 7, 2008

The amendments included in AB 926 closely track several of the 2006 e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Among other things, the amendments:

— Establish procedures for a person to obtain discovery of electronically stored information, as defined, in addition to documents, tangible things, or land or other property, in the possession of any other party to the action. 

— Provide that if a party responding to a demand for production of ESI objects to a specified form for producing the information, or if no form is specified in the demand, the responding party shall state in its response the form in which it intends to produce each type of information.  If a demand for production does not specify a form or forms for producing a type of ESI, the responding party would be required to produce the information in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable, but need not produce the same ESI in more than one form.

Read More