In Defense of Genger: Background
Ages ago by internet standards (late February), Law.com hosted a two-part post criticizing the Delaware Court of Chancery's decision in TR Investors v. Genger. Post author Leonard Deutchman, General Counsel at LDiscovery LLC, asserts that the Court got the decision wrong because it (1) doesn't understand the technology invloved and (2) doesn't understand the law of eDiscovery.
I have been chomping at the bit to post a reply but have been consumed with finishing the 70-page (not including appendices) internal Morris James eDiscovery Protocol that overlays the EDRM with project management principles, and the accompanying 6-hour training course, but I digress...
Before I post my defense of the Genger decision, it would be useful for all my loyal readers (primarily my mother and wife) to first read the Law.com articles criticizing the Genger decision.
Part I:
Part II:
I will give you all a few days to get through these posts before I post my defense. Cheers!



To hell with the Genger case, tell us more about the Morris James eDiscovery Protocol and training course!
I wish everyone shared your LPM enthusiasm Paul. I hope to discuss the Protocol and training program soon. In fact, we are considering making the Protocol freely available, in which case it will be posted here.