Morris James LLP is pleased to congratulate the lawyers listed below, who were most recommended by their professional peers in a survey of Delaware attorneys conducted by Delaware Today magazine. Morris James received more “top lawyer” peer recognitions and had more “top vote-getters” than any other law firm. Top vote-getters are listed in bold below and a number following a name indicates the number of recognitions this year. Continue Reading
According to Bloomberg BNA, the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States and have been forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration. Rule 37(e) has received the most attention to date, as it focuses on sanctions as well as remedies for the failure to preserve data.
These amendments promise to change the eDiscovery landscape, though debate will continue as to what degree.
Morris James LLP has announced that Laura G. Readinger has joined the Firm’s Wilmington office as an associate in its Business Litigation Practice Group. Ms. Readinger’s practice will focus on electronic discovery during all aspects of litigation. “Ms. Readinger brings an exciting depth of experience to the firm,” says managing partner, David H. Williams, “We are pleased to add her talents to the litigation group.”
Prior to joining Morris James, Ms. Readinger served as a law clerk in Ohio and an eData associate in Philadelphia. She was also an associate in Guatemala where she used her fluency in Spanish to review corporate contracts and act as a liaison with American clients.
Ms. Readinger received her J.D. in 2007 from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, where she received the Dean’s Merit Award and the Academic Promise Award. She is a 2004 graduate of Cornell University, where she received her B.A. in Psychology with a Concentration in Law and Society. She is admitted to practice law in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York and she is also the Treasurer of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania.
Thirteen Lawyers and Four Practices Recognized as Top-Tier in Delaware
Morris James LLP is pleased to announce that thirteen attorneys in five separate practice areas have been top ranked among the leading Delaware lawyers in the 2014 edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Chambers also ranked four of its practice areas as among the top practices in Delaware including Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Chancery, Intellectual Property and Labor & Employment. Read more.
Last week I attended LegalTech at the Hilton in New York City. During the past two years the focus of LegalTech has largely been on the continuing Predictive Coding discussion with an emphasis on using it to reduce the cost of discovery. This year’s conference, however, featured more varied CLE topics and discussions. Continue Reading
A recent landmark decision in which the Court of Chancery ordered both sides to engage in predictive coding by using a mutually agreed upon vendor has been modified. The new order allows plaintiffs in the EORHB v. HOA matter to review their documents using traditional methods. They will also be allowed to choose a separate vendor than defendants.
We lawyers have a tendency to confuse our terminology when discussing technology. This is especially true when discussing the technical aspects of eDiscovery.
I was inspired by the excellent Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology-Assisted Review which attempted to define the terminology surrounding TAR. I prepared the following short glossary of commonly used eDiscovery terms to assist our group in understanding some of jargon used by eDiscovery professionals. The terms can be found after the break.
Henry Kelston of the Legal Intelligencer provides a useful summary of the amendments to the FRCP that were recently proposed by the United States Courts’ Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.
The rules would seek to create uniformity on a variety of issues including scope and proportionality of discovery, sanctions for failure to preserve discoverable information and limits on written discovery and depositions.
Hello, and welcome back to the Delaware eDiscovery Report. There have been many developments recently in the world of eDiscovery, particularly in Delaware. Before providing a rundown of these new cases and guidelines, I would like to offer an introduction.
My name is Ian McCauley. I have focused my practice solely on eDiscovery for the past 5 years with an emphasis on effective project management, early data/case assessment and litigation support/legal synergies. I hope to have other voices join the conversation as we begin the blog anew.
I attended the Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat (CVEDR) two weeks ago, spent last week digging out from under everything that had piled up in my office, so now have a moment to share some thoughts on the event.
First, a big congratulations to Chris LaCour for putting together a successful event. I thought the content was among the best I’ve seen, especially the panel on defending the use of analytics. ;-) The work product series of panels explored the tension between work product protection and cooperative translucence. As you can imagine, there was some debate on the issue and highlights the need for more practical guidance—if the experts can’t agree, what hope does the average practitioner have of walking this tightrope?
eDiscovery Journal’s Greg Buckles was an excellent moderator and has written his own summary titled "CVEDR Take II – Monkeys and Magistrates in Monterey." Greg offered us some key takeaways and paraphrased memorable panelist statements. I would like to offer the following unattributed panelist comments or concepts to Greg’s list:
- ‘Judge-consumable’ information is information about e-discovery that is easily digested by non-e-discovery judges.
- ‘Containing the intrusion’ into work product, meaning efforts to limit the scope of inquiry when the e-discovery process is called into question.
- Many of us seem to agree there should be a presumption that a producing party has acted reasonably, requiring some good cause showing of a problem before delving into work product protected activities.
- If you want to try some form of technology-assisted review but are uneasy about its defensibility, try it out on an opposing production.
- Have a Consulting Expert who will have full access in a matter and a Testifying Expert who knows about the things they need to know to properly testify.
- Along the same line, bifurcating custodian interviews into Technical Interviews and Substantive Interviews protects the substantive information from disclosure.
- Who owns the work product protection when a firm chooses a vendor and works directly with them, but the client signs the contract?
- An Information Flow Map may be more useful than a Data Map, because it shouldn’t become outdated as quickly.
There were many more excellent quotes and ideas floated at the conference. Be there next year and hear them all. In the meantime, you can listen to the 2012 Judicial Panel at ESIBytes.