Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Seamlessly Mastering Large-Scale Discovery Requests
A law firm representing a Fortune 100 corporation had recently struck a deal to acquire one of its major industry competitors. Upon receiving the notice of the merger under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a “Second Request,” demanding corporate data from more than 11 geographic locations, including several sites in Europe, South America and Asia. The requested data, derived from a total of 315 employees in the acquiring corporation, had been generated on a wide array of operating systems, e-mail packages and software applications. In addition, the firm had over 100 boxes of paper documents that needed to be incorporated into the production set. The firm anticipated a final document production totaling more than 7 million pages. To add to the complexity of the request, the whole collection, review and production could take only 10 to 12 weeks.
Most attorneys find discovery projects of this volume and magnitude a formidable task ' particularly when the stakes are high and production deadlines are tight. After all, many lawyers may not possess the technical prowess to understand the process and may feel uncertain about the best method for collecting, reviewing and producing volumes of electronic data. Adding to this daunting task is the requirement of addressing issues such as the handling of privileged information, e-mail and attachment production, metadata issues, and a host of other concerns. Whether practicing in a corporate environment or running a litigation practice, modern lawyers must prepare to handle discovery projects of all scopes and sizes. Failing to understand the special technical considerations involved with a large electronic-discovery project could leave a law firm and its client in hot water. After all, case law and newspaper headlines prove that courts and regulatory agencies expect practitioners and corporations to become technologically savvy or face sanctions in the form of hefty monetary fines or awards, adverse-inference instructions or even default judgments.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.