Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Rule 34's Direct Access Provision
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to 'inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents or electronically stored information.' However, what exactly does that mean for corporate litigants? Can a plaintiff demand to show up at a client's offices and expect a seat in front of a keyboard? Will a client be forced to hire a third party to copy its hard drives ' online shopping Web history and all ' and hand them over to the opponent?
Like many questions of law, the answer to either scenario is 'it depends.' Moreover, despite all the frenzy surrounding e-discovery and the relatively recent rule amendments, arriving at the answer should not involve an exhaustive analysis of the recently growing body of e-discovery literature. Given the history and purpose of the discovery rules, common-sense considerations of the facts at issue in any case will dictate whether it is appropriate for a judge to allow an opponent direct access to a client's computer system or to 'mirror images' of the computer system.
Fact patterns giving rise to such 'direct access' orders generally take two forms: 1) there are 'discrepancies,' 'inconsistencies,' or wholesale noncompliance with discovery rules in a responding party's discovery productions, or 2) a party alleges that the opponent used a computer itself to commit the 'wrong' that is the subject of the dispute. Even if these threshold conditions are met, a court will still attempt to protect against 'fishing expeditions' by requiring certain protocols for searching, production of search results, and objections.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.