Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i><b>BREAKING NEWS:</b></i><br> Sedona Conference Releases 3rd Edition of e-Discovery Principles for Public Comment
Perhaps the most often cited e-discovery document — from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure amendments to cases from New York to California — is “The Sedona Principles,” a wide-ranging publication from the group of e-discovery experts at The Sedona Conference. The document ranges from entry-level topics (“What is electronic discovery?”) to the specific (reasonable and good faith efforts for the obligation to preserve electronically stored information).
There's just one problem: The last full version of the document, version 2, was released in 2007. But now, following four years of work from The Sedona Conference Working Group 1 (WG1), the organization is releasing version 3 of The Sedona Principles for public comment.
Released under the full title “The Sedona Principles, Third Edition: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production,” the 116-page document features 14 different principles, which Sedona says “embody the consensus view of WG1 on a reasonable and balanced approach to the treatment of electronically stored information in the legal process.” These principles range in topic from how electronic information is handled in relation to other information (Principle 1) to the differences between responding and requesting parties (Principles 6 and 7) to sanctions and remediation (Principle 14).
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.