We’ve complained before about the horrendous – and more than that, almost entirely one-sided – expense of ediscovery in prescription medical product liability litigation. It just seems to be getting worse. It’s almost always a free shot for the other side, since plaintiffs simply don’t have electronic databases. The only way to make the other
Maybe.
From what we can tell from the recent opinion in Race Tires America Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011), that case was one of those e-discovery wars where the parties went at one another hammer and tong, and for long periods e-discovery disputes all-but-obscured the
More than three years ago, back in February, 2008 we put up a post about e-discovery for defendants. After the usual lamentations about how e-discovery imposed asymmetrical burdens on defendants – since defendants have a lot more “e” to discover – we offered what we hoped were some helpful hints and observations about how that
Folks, before asking for it, make sure you can articulate how discovery into the plaintiff’s use of social networking sites is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
That’s the lesson of this new New York appellate case, McCann v. Harleysville Insurance Co., CA 10-00612, slip op. (N.Y.A.D. 4th Dept. Nov. 12,
Anybody with a pulse, a computer, and a connection to the internet has heard the warnings: be careful what you post on Facebook, MySpace, and other social network sites. That blow-by-blow account of your victory in the Tenth Intramural Beer Pong Championship can come back to haunt you. Those pictures of you clothed only with
The law reviews just keep on coming.
And one in a thousand articles keeps begging to be read.
We liked Nicholas Pace and William Rubenstein’s RAND Working Paper titled, “How Transparent are Class Action Outcomes?: Empirical Research on the Availability of Class Action Claims Data” (on SSRN here). Their thesis is not exactly a
Who’d a thunk it?
There’s now a blog devoted entirely to the subject of “litigation holds” — efforts to preserve documents and e-documents when litigation is threatened or filed. (That’s a very general description of the issue, and purists would quibble with our precise language. But we’re blogging, not briefing, here, so we don’t feel
We’ve commented before on ways that defendants can do more with e-discovery than just sit there and take shots from the other side. In that vein, we’d like to recommend this nifty little primer on how defendants can go on the e-discovery offense in product liability litigation, complete with a check list of sorts. Tip
There must be some problem with our comment function, because we received an email from a reader that the comment quoted below wouldn’t post. We apologize for that, but (being Luddites) all we know how to do is put it up as a post. Here’s the comment:
Wouldn’t such a request be objectionable and properly
Defendants ordinarily hate e-discovery – that is, the discovery of electronically stored information. It’s horrendously expensive (courts almost always stick defendants with the lion’s share of the cost), the amount of data involved in big cases can be overwhelming, and there are so many nooks and crannies that it’s terribly easy to screw it up.