Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
28 U.S. Code Section 1782(A) provides that an individual or entity that resides or is found in a jurisdiction may be ordered to produce documents or give testimony for disputes before foreign or international tribunals, so long as that person or entity is in possession or control of relevant evidence. U.S. courts are split on what is required to show “control” of documents, but generally apply either the “legal right standard” or the “practical ability standard.” Under the legal right standard, a party is deemed to have control over documents possessed by others only if the party has the legal right to obtain them. The practical ability standard is broader, expanding the definition of control to include instances where a party has the practical ability to obtain the documents sought, regardless of that party’s legal right to the documents.
*May exclude premium content
Experts share their experience and insight around workplace trends and the value of technology tools to drive productivity and engagement in a roundtable discussion.
By Jared Coseglia
Part One of a Two-Part Article
This deep dive into the specific cause-and-effect paradigms impacting the data privacy and e-discovery verticals illustrates broader trends in the overall legal technology job market while simultaneously giving professionals in (or eager to be in) those disciplines a clear roadmap of where the legal technology, data privacy, and ESI job market was, is today, and where it will be in the future.
By Ashley Thomas
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses scrambled to rapidly deploy a remote workforce which created new challenges for businesses to continue operating and providing critical services. It also created an opportunity for malicious actors to hack into and gain access to IT systems and sensitive, personal information.
By David H. Bernstein and Jared I. Kagan
In the first case in U.S. Supreme Court history argued by telephone, the Court on June 30, 2020 ruled 8-1 in favor of Booking.com holding that it could register as a trademark its eponymous domain name BOOKING.COM.