Catagory:Market Announcements

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2012)

On November 8th, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. filed his long awaited decision in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification of Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck.  In his short and to the point opinion, Judge Carter concluded that “Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review, reached upon consideration of the applicable law, was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias.”  The court further found that “Magistrate Judge Peck’s conduct falls within proper bounds of judicial conduct” and that “[h]is denial of Plaintiffs’ recusal motion is consistent with the interests of judicial economy and the administration of justice.”

A full copy of the order is available here.

By: Katie Taylor, K&L Gates

SaaS, PaaS and data hosting providers stress the significant efficiencies to be gained from cloud computing when marketing their services.  Depending on the cloud computing system you are considering, however, a number of features may have a significant impact on your company’s ability to comply with electronic discovery obligations should it be sued or subpoenaed.

To read the entire article, click here.

As announced in today’s edition of the Federal Register, the International Trade Commission has proposed to amend its Rules of Practice and Procedure to address “concerns that have arisen about the scope of discovery in Commission proceedings under section 337 of the Tarrif Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”).”  “The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to reduce expensive, inefficient, unjustified, or unnecessary discovery practices in agency proceedings while preserving the opportunity for fair and efficient discovery for all parties.”  To that end, the proposed amendments address issues including the discovery of inaccessible information and limitations to discovery similar to those currently contemplated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).  The proposed amendments also seek to add new provisions addressing privileged information and work product, including by requiring the production of privilege logs and by providing procedures for addressing the inadvertent production of privileged materials.

For more information on the proposed amendments, click here to be taken to today’s edition of the Federal Register.  Please note too, the Commission invites public comment on its proposals due no later than 5:15 PM on December 4, 2012.

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it has issued “final changes to agency procedure that will streamline the FTC’s investigatory process, make updates to keep pace with electronic evidence discovery, and provide more detail on how the agency evaluates allegations of misconduct by attorneys practicing before the Commission.”  Among the changes highlighted in the agency’s announcement is a new requirement that parties "meet and confer with FTC staff within 14 days (with certain exceptions) to resolve electronic discovery issues relating to subpoenas and civil investigative demands (CIDs), as well as any other issues” and a change which will relieve “parties of their obligations to preserve documents related to an FTC investigation after a year passes with no written communication from Commission staff.”  Other changes include, among other things, express references to electronically stored information throughout the rules and specific amendments addressing “the manner and form of production of ESI” (§2.7(j)) and inadvertent production and waiver (§2.11(d)).  The rules become effective on November 9, 2012.

To read the agency’s press release, which includes a link to the adopted amendments, click here.

People v. Harris, No. 2011NY080152 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2012)

As was previously discussed on this blog (here, here, and here), Twitter, Inc. was recently ordered by New York Judge Matthew Sciarrino to produce both “content” and “non-content” information (including the text of Tweets) associated with the account of criminal defendant Malcolm Harris.  Mr. Harris and others were arrested during an “Occupy Wall Street” protest after marching onto the Brooklyn Bridge.  Thereafter, the District Attorney sent a subpoena to Twitter seeking Mr. Harris’ user information and Tweets in an apparent effort to disprove his claims that he and other protesters were led onto the roadway by the police.  Initially, Mr. Harris sought to quash the subpoena, but his motion was denied by the court for lack of standing—the court found that he had no proprietary interest in the information sought and that his claimed privacy interest was “understandable” but “without merit.”  Twitter then sought to quash the subpoena itself, but that motion was also denied.  Twitter had argued that Mr. Harris (like all Twitter users) had standing to quash the subpoena and that the court’s decision to deny that standing placed an undue burden on Twitter where it would be forced to either respond to all subpoenas or to vindicate its users’ rights by moving to quash.

Read More

On July 16, 2012, Defendant MSLGroup filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Rule 72(A) Objection to Magistrate Judge Peck’s June 15, 2012 Opinion and Order (which denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification).  The memorandum is available here.
 

K&L Gates partner Julie Anne Halter was featured on a Q&A panel of litigators discussing e-disclosure as a transformative tool in litigation.  Panelists were asked:

With technology changing constantly, how can lawyers best use e-disclosure to help their clients through the litigation process?  Four experts debate some of the hot topics in this area.

Read their debate

First published by The Lawyer on July 16, 2012.

On July 5, 2012, the Supreme Court of Florida adopted amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to address the discovery of electronically stored information.  The amendments will become effective September 1, 2012 at 12:02 a.m.

The amendments will affect seven rules of civil procedure: “1.200 (Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena).”

The court’s order, available below, provides both a short discussion of the relevant changes and the text of the new rules as adopted, including committee notes which, although not adopted as an official part of the rules, do provide valuable insight into their meaning and intended use.

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

On June 29, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Rule 72(A) objection to Magistrate Judge Peck’s denial of their Motion for Recusal or Disqualification.  Plaintiffs’ brief is available below.  (Plaintiffs’ declaration in support of their brief is over 500 pages long and is available on PACER  at http://www.pacer.gov/.)

• Plaintiffs’ Rule 72(A) Objection to the Magistrate’s June 15, 2012 Opinion and Order

The Western District of Washington has published on its website proposed amendments to the Local Civil Rules, including the addition of language that specifically addresses the discovery of electronically stored information.  The court has also published a proposed Model Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information in Civil Litigation, which was “developed in partnership with the Federal Bar Association” and which parties could choose to adopt or modify for use in their case.

To access the proposed amendments and/or Model Protocol, click here.  Comments are encouraged and may be sent vial email to localrules@wawd.uscourts.gov.  Comments must be received no later than 5 PM on September 28, 2012.  Approved changes to the local rules will go into effect on December 1, 2012.