Under a ruling issued by a federal district court in Arizona (In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 2016 BL 306366, D. Ariz., No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC, 9/16/16), the new Federal Rules for discovery allowed the defendant to avoid producing electronically-stored foreign communications in multidistrict litigation over allegedly faulty medical devices.
Articles Discussing The Work Of Practicing Labor And Employment Law.
Too Reliant Upon Technology?
Recent technological advances have rapidly changed the way professionals operate. Professionals are no longer tied to their offices, have myriad resources at their fingertips to research new issues and handle new tasks, and are able to reach new clients through social media. In general, these advances allow professionals to work more efficiently, increase their output, and broaden their professional footprint. However, professionals must tread cautiously when they employ technologies that do not merely assist with professional services, but actually supplant the professional’s role.
ESI Lost After Duty To Preserve Had Been Triggered Results In Limited Sanction Under New Rule 37(e)
A federal court in Utah recently applied the newly amended Rule 37(e) and, in doing so, issued relatively limited sanctions following a finding of spoliation.
Federal Court Compels Former Executive to Respond To Extensive Discovery Requests Despite High Cost
A federal court in Pennsylvania recently ordered a former executive to respond to costly and expansive discovery requests in a case where the former executive allegedly set up a competing business in violation of his employment agreement. Although responding to the discovery was expected to be a costly endeavor, the Court in First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. John A. Folino (E.D. Penn. August 11, 2016) nevertheless rejected the defendant’s financial hardship argument based on the fact that he recently received $5 million for the sale of two companies to the plaintiff.
A Party May Comply With Rule 34 By Identifying Its Search Parameters As Opposed To Identifying Withheld Documents
According to a recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, a party may satisfy its obligations under Rule 34 when—in response a demand for the production of documents—the party states how the party limited its search for responsive documents, but does not specifically identify the documents that have been withheld.
Attorneys Facing Addiction
It is an unfortunate reality that the legal profession reportedly has one of the highest levels of addiction of any occupation in the country. Although many states maintain hotlines and other services available to attorneys, it is all too common that addiction struggles advance to the point where ethical violations result for the attorney.
Court Rejects Burdensome Argument As It Relates To Litigation Holds
The importance of timely implementing a litigation hold cannot be overemphasized. In Bruner v. American Honda Motor Company, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 62810 (S.D. Ala. May 12, 2016), the plaintiffs, who were involved in an accident involving a 2007 Honda Civic, sought potential e-mails related to airbags installed in Civics during a ten-year span encompassing the model year of the accident vehicle. The defendant argued that under the applicable document retention policies, any such e-mails would have been destroyed after thirty days and, therefore, no such documents existed. The defendant further asserted that it had undertaken a thorough search of its various electronic communication systems and had found no documents.
Federal Court In Washington Sanctions Attorney For Citing “Badly Out Of Date” Case Law
Defense counsel was sanctioned by a federal court in Washington for bringing a motion to compel in bad faith, with the court finding that defense counsel’s citation of case law analyzing a prior version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was “inexcusable.”
Unsupported And Exaggerated Assertions Regarding The Burden Of Production Will Not Persuade The Court
By now we’re all familiar with the language recently implemented in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, providing employers with some protection against unreasonable demands related to ESI: “A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).
Photographs at Depositions?
Depositions generally involve a series of questions and answers between the deponent and counsel. At times, however, counsel may want to use the deposition as an opportunity to have the witness demonstrate a task or record physical characteristics of a witness. Conveniently, nearly all attorneys now carry a camera in their pocket, in the form of their mobile device. When capturing images or video during depositions, counsel must be careful not to violate a right to privacy, or cast them in an offensive manner.
Who Is Really the Client?
The attorney-client privilege is one of the most basic tenants of professional liability. While the general rule itself is uncomplicated, complex circumstances between attorneys and their clients can often trip up even the most experienced lawyer. Take for example the following New Jersey malpractice case involving a law firm’s general counsel which raises the question: who is really the client?
Fee Shifting with Non-Lawyers
As a general matter, the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit lawyers from sharing fees with non-attorneys. However, there are certain exceptions to that rule. Rule 5.4 states that “a lawyer or law firm may include non-lawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement.” A recent case out of Pennsylvania describes how a non-lawyer attempted to put this exception into action, albeit unsuccessfully.
Potential Conflicts for Summer Hires?
Many law firms employ law clerks, or hire summer associates. The former are often current law students, while the latter are almost always current law students. There are benefits to both the firm and the student in these situations; the student gains real-world legal experience and an opportunity to work alongside experienced attorneys, while the firm gets capable and often short-term employees. Many firms use these experiences as a way of determining future hiring, as a sort of “trial run” used to assess whether any of the clerks or associate could fit in well at the firm after graduating. It’s a practice that is as widespread as it is common.
May A Company “Preserve In Place” To Satisfy Its Preservation Obligations
A common question that often arises is whether to physically collect/copy a person’s e-mail account once that person is placed on a litigation hold. Rather than copy the e-mail account, many companies will simply turn off the “auto-delete” function and issue the employee a preservation notice. By doing so, the company is essentially preserving in place. Although some may question this method of preservation, it is no different than if an employee had a box of potentially relevant documents in his office and, rather than make a copy of the box, the employee was instructed to continue to hold the box in his office until further notice. In most situations, this should be sufficient to satisfy a company’s preservation obligations.
Facebook Post May Lead to Attorney Disqualification
Social media is ubiquitous in the workplace. Professionals use social media to write about their achievements, to discuss developments in their field, and to promote their practices. Professionals who use social media as an extension of their practice must be cautious, however, that the discussion of pending matters does not violate their duty of confidentiality to clients or expose confidential information that would prejudice others.