Catagory:Market Announcements

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

On Monday, Defendant MSL Group Americas, Inc. filed its response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification.  Those pleadings are available below.

Read More

On Friday April 13, 2012, Plaintiffs in this matter filed a formal motion for recusal or disqualification, following up on their prior, informal request for the same.

• A copy of the Notice of Motion for Recusal or Disqualification is available here.
• A copy of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification is available here.
• A copy of the Declaration of Steven L. Wittels in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification (without exhibits attached) is available here.  Exhibits are available on PACER (http://www.pacer.gov/)

On Monday, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ request for his recusal, which, according to Judge Peck, was contained in a letter dated March 28, 2012 (and is not publicly available at this time).

A copy of the order is available here.

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

As expected, on March 19, 2012, plaintiffs in this case filed their Reply in Support of Rule 72(a) Objection to Magistrate Judge Peck’s February 8, 2012 Discovery Rulings.  In it, plaintiffs summarize their arguments as follows:

Extrajudicial activities aside, what should matter is whether MSL’s Method will ensure that MSL fulfills its obligations under Rule 26 to produce reasonable discovery.  Here, the answer is a resounding no.  Judge Peck’s adoption of MSL’s Method was contrary to law and/or clearly erroneous for two main reasons.  First, Judge Peck adopted MSL’s Method on an insufficient record; Judge Peck failed to hold an evidentiary hearing or obtain expert testimony as to its reliability and accuracy.  Second, MSL’s Method fails to meet basic standards for reliability; the protocol risks failing to capture up to 65% of the documents material to Plaintiffs’ case.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reverse Judge Peck’s ESI rulings.

In support of their position, plaintiffs also filed declarations from their attorney, Siham Nurhussein, and their expert in this case, Paul J. Neale.  All that remains now is for District Court Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. to issue his ruling, which will be reported on this blog when it becomes available.

For a copy of Plaintiffs’ Reply, click here.
For a copy of the Declaration of Siham Nurhussein, click here.
For a copy of the Declaration of Paul J. Neale, click here.

Signed by Chief District Judge Leonard Davis on February 27, 2012, amendments to the Local Rules in the Eastern District of Texas include a [Model] Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases similar to an order  promulgated by a subcommittee of the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit late last year.  The new [Model] Order is different in several respects, however.  The treatment of email, for example, differs in several important ways, including that the presumptive limitation on the allowable number of custodians is raised from five to eight, that the presumptive limitation on the allowable number of search terms is raised from five to ten, and that the court may consider requests for additional or fewer custodians without limitation.  The [Model] Order in the Eastern District of Texas also includes instruction on the production of ESI, including, for example, requiring production in TIFF format and specifying that no party has an obligation to make its production text-searchable unless it already exists in that form or is being converted for use in the litigation, including for use by the producing party’s counsel.  The [Model] Order in the Eastern District also limits a party’s obligation to restore backup media absent a showing of good cause and likewise precludes the obligation to collect and preserve voicemails, PDAs, and mobile phones (deemed “not reasonably accessible”) absent the same showing. 

Although the rules are effective immediately, comments regarding the amendments will be accepted by the Clerk of Court until Friday, March 23, 2012.

A copy of the General Order Amending Local Rules is available here.

This month, the Joint Electronic Technology Working Group (JETWG) revealed its “Recommendations for ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases,” which are intended “to promote the efficient and cost-effective post-indictment production of electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery between the Government and defendants charged in federal criminal cases, and to reduce unnecessary conflict and litigation over ESI discovery by encouraging the parties to communicate about ESI discovery issues, by creating a predictable framework for ESI discovery, and by establishing methods for resolving ESI discovery disputes without the need for court intervention.”

Read More

It was great to hear the Electronic Discovery Law blog receiving high praise in the most recent Digital Detectives podcast!  In particular, our thanks go out to Neil Squillante, publisher of LitigationWorld, who was the guest of Sharon D. Nelson and John W. Simek this month .  The podcast was called “The Best Resources for Staying Current in E-Discovery” and when the topic turned to blogs, Mr. Squillante had this to say:

If you’re gonna just read one blog because you don’t have time, it should probably be the Electronic Discovery Law blog published by K&L Gates, a law firm.  They cover the most important appellate opinions in the ediscovery space so it’s a good way to keep up with what’s going on, especially issues that scare lawyers like spoliation, sanctions, and so forth.

To listen to the podcast, click here.

Thomas J. Smith and Matthew S. Collins, K&L Gates
The Legal Intelligencer, February 9, 2012

The extraordinary cost of e-discovery is well documented.  The amount of ESI that we generate is exploding and the use and prevalence of technology, its ease of access, and the relatively low cost mean that trend will continue.  Clients are becoming increasingly sensitive to and concerned about these increasing costs, and the ongoing economic malaise has only exacerbated the problem and hastened clients’ efforts to control such costs.  In doing so, parties are looking beyond macro controls such as the number of custodians, the nature of collections (full v. targeted), and filtering techniques (date limitations, keyword terms), and now look at micro controls, including the parsing of document families at a component level.  A key question, therefore, becomes: If one part of a multi-component document is relevant, should all nonprivileged parts of that document also be produced?

To read the entire article, click here.

By Robyn Weisman & Monica Bay
Law Technology News, January 30, 2012

Today’s top law firms and their corporate clients are struggling to find the right combination of people, processes, technology — and facilities — to effectively control the quality and costs of electronic data discovery.  The risks are acutely visible for those who stumble: not just court-ordered sanctions, but lost data, cases, clients, profits, and reputations.  So how can major firms speed up the processes, hire the right personnel, meet ethical obligations to protect client confidentiality, cooperate with opposing counsel, maintain proportionality (i.e., not spend more on EDD than appropriate for the potential exposure of a case) — yet quickly find and process appropriate data?  There’s no "one size fits all" single answer, but four models seem to be developing as loose frames:

To read the entire article, click here.