Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
LEGAL TECH: New TAR Case Spotlights Perils with Broad ESI Protocols
A new case has brought into the spotlight the risks responding parties face when entering into ESI protocols with detailed disclosure obligations regarding technology-assisted review (TAR). In In re Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 2020), the court refused to approve a responding party's proposed TAR process and insisted that the design and execution of a TAR workflow required "an unprecedented degree of transparency" between the responding and requesting parties.
Valsartan's holding flows from the stipulated ESI protocol in which the parties agreed to "cooperate" and "meet and confer" regarding "the disclosure and formulation" of TAR. Indeed, the Valsartan holding is specifically premised on the ESI protocol's expansive transparency and cooperation provisions, to which a responding party agreed and then failed to observe. Given Valsartan's holding and rationale, responding parties may be wary of entering into ESI protocols with such broad disclosure and cooperation obligations regarding TAR.
The Impact of the ESI Protocol on TAR
Valsartan is an MDL matter in which plaintiffs are seeking relief for alleged health problems arising from their use of prescription medication to treat high blood pressure. To better handle electronic discovery in a sprawling MDL, the parties stipulated to an ESI protocol that would ostensibly address various issues, including search methodologies.
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.