If you're looking for a quick way to become overwhelmed and discouraged, google "ediscovery" or "ediscovery resources."
Surveillance cameras are ubiquitous these days. Whether captured on doorbell cams, car dashboards, in parking garages, or in businesses, video surveillance footage is often requested and highly sought-after by litigants attempting to prove their cases in court. But what happens when the opposing party fails to provide this valuable ESI?
Remember your middle school teacher who would remove a grade letter for each day your paper was late? Maybe that teacher was inspired by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Energy Keepers, Inc v. Hyperblock LLC examines FRCP Rule 37(c)(1) and the timely disclosure of discovery under Rule 26.
You would think that by now employees know their cell phones are not, in fact, black boxes where anything goes and "privacy" reigns supreme. You would be wrong.
What happens when attorneys and their clients disregard both the spirit and letter of the FRCP’s eDiscovery rules? As illustrated in the case below, very bad things.
Even federal judges have breaking points, and after more than 8 years, 400+ docket entries, and an almost incomprehensible number of ESI blunders, defendants and their counsel unfortunately (but not surprisingly) found themselves on the exploding end of a 103-page, court-imposed sanctions truth-bomb.
A company with a funny name. A dispute about intellectual property. Concerns about cost and privacy. Add it up and what do you get? The latest Proteus Discovery Group case study.
Spoliation sanctions: two words no in-house counsel or law firm litigator ever wants to hear, but a routinely-deployed threat when a disagreement about the availability of ESI arises.
In a post-COVID world, more data is being generated than ever before. Microsoft O365, and its Teams platform, has been a huge winner in the shift to working from home. In April 2020, Microsoft reported 258 million O365 users – a 21% jump from the 2019.