Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Tech: Winter 2021 E-Discovery Case Law Review
More than ever before, legal and regulatory activities require high-quality data and increasingly sophisticated techniques for seeking out, preserving, and collecting that data for litigation. In particular, e-discovery activities can often create snags for counsel through myriad ways — from custodian collection mistakes to actions that lead to permanent injunctions due to ESI spoliation. In this winter e-discovery case law review, we'll cover three cases that might have turned out differently had counsel supervised e-discovery activities more adequately.
- Case 1: Custodian Self-Collection Leads to E-Discovery Headaches E.E.O.C. v. M1 5100 Corp.
- Case 2: Appeals Court Affirms Permanent Injunction for ESI Spoliation QueTel Corp. v. Hisham Abbas
- Case 3: Outside Counsel Sanctioned for Not Adequately Supervising Client's E-Discovery Activities Optronic Tech Inc. v. Ningbo
Custodian Self-Collection Leads to E-Discovery Headaches
E.E.O.C. v. M1 5100 Corp., No. 19-cv-81320 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2020)
Why This Case Is Important
In today's sophisticated digital environment, people can feel so confident in their IT skills that they think can do anything an e-discovery professional or IT professional can do. This case is a prime example that this isn't true, and for an e-discovery process to be truly defensible, legal teams must play an important role in ensuring the proper and comprehensive collection/processing of data in e-discovery.
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.