Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
e-Discovery Today
Since their invention more than 50 years ago, we have come to rely on computers to keep track of virtually every facet of our lives. Courts have acknowledged the central role of computers, understanding that individuals and corporations have used them to cut costs, improve production, enhance communication, store countless data, and improve capabilities in every aspect of human and technological development. Given the central role of computer technology in our personal and professional lives, discovery requests for electronically stored information have become commonplace. The costs associated with discovery frequently escalate when the information sought is stored electronically, because retrieval is often more complicated and nuanced than the production of hard copies of documents. Not surprisingly, the disclosure and production of electronically stored information is often the subject of discovery disputes.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B) provides that mandatory initial disclosures should include a copy or description of all “documents … data compilations … and tangible things” in the possession of the disclosing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 allows for any party to serve a request on another party to produce or make available for inspection “documents,” which include “data compilations from which information can be obtained,” and “tangible things” within the producing party's control. In addition, the 1970 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 provide that the rule amendment to include “data compilations” as a sub-category of “documents” was effected to account for “changing technology.” Some state courts follow similar rules.
There are several issues to be explored pertaining to the discovery of electronically stored information, including the basis under the federal rules for the discoverability of this information, cost-shifting associated with this type of discovery, sanctions for spoliation of evidence, as well as recent local rules adopted by federal district courts to address the discovery of electronically stored information.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.