As most e-discovery vendors will happily tell you, 99% of all new business information is being created and stored electronically, and an estimated 60 billion e-mail messages are sent daily in the U.S. Sifting through all this data in a meaningful manner requires strategic thinking. On one hand, parties have an obligation ' and courts have created incentives ' to be fully forthcoming on electronic discovery requests. On the other hand, processing and reviewing data collected from hundreds of desktops and servers can become very expensive. During the e-discovery search process, even the most strategic keyword selections can leave a lot to be desired. Even case-specific terms may generate a lot of hits, but it may also produce more false positives than relevant material. Creating a strategic plan for data filtering through a well-researched selection of keywords and file types helps to ensure efficiencies in cost, time and resources, while generating fully forthcoming materials.
- October 29, 2007Brian Larsen
A Minnesota woman was found guilty oif illegally downloading music onto her computer -- to the tune of $222,000, a jury decided in federal court in Duluth on Oct. 4.
October 04, 2007Steven SalkinNews about lawyers and law firms in the product liability field.
September 28, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
September 28, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |On July 31, 2007, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the forum non conveniens dismissal of pharmaceutical product liability claims filed by 95 UK plaintiffs in In re Vioxx Litigation, Docket No. A-1731-06T1. The case involved allegations asserting personal injury claims allegedly caused by defendant Merck & Co., Inc.'s anti-inflammatory medicine, Vioxx'. This is a noteworthy forum non conveniens decision that could well have ramifications outside of New Jersey, particularly in other mass tort situations.
September 28, 2007James J. 'J.' FerrelliTension concerning the duty-of-care standard has continually mounted as courts have wrestled with the scope of the waiver of the attorney-client and work-product privileges when litigants asserted an advice-of-counsel defense. More recently, several district courts extended the waiver to trial counsel, further presenting considerable obstacles when defending a claim of willful infringement. It is in this environment that the Federal Circuit decided, sua sponte, that it should reconsider the duty-of-care standard and the waiver issues associated with the advice-of-counsel defense.
September 28, 2007Stacy L. PrallAs discussed in detail in this two-part series, the final rule places a number of restrictions on various aspects of patent practice. This first installment examines the final rule as it relates to continued examination filings.
September 28, 2007Andrew T. Spence, James T. Pinyerd, Guy R. GosnellA federal law that targets online gambling by making it illegal to make or receive payoffs violates the First Amendment, a federal suit charges. A not-for-profit association of Internet gamers and gaming companies is asking a federal judge in Trenton, NJ to block enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ('UIGEA') and to issue a temporary restraining order.
September 27, 2007Mary Pat GallagherThe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel in a copyright-infringement suit.
September 27, 2007Stan SoocherEntertainment law firms in California commonly charge the talent they represent on a percentage basis, rather than an hourly one. The typical arrangement requires the client to pay 5% of gross income derived from contracts entered into during the course of the representation. Earlier this year, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles addressed the enforceability of this fee structure in the context of an acrimonious dispute between two entertainment firms. The principal issue in the case, and the focus of this article, is whether clients who had departed for the new firm had a continuing obligation to pay that 5% fee to the old firm as a matter of contract law.
September 27, 2007Michael I. Rudell and Neil J. Rosini