Features
Eugene J. Geekie, Jr., Patricia J. Fokuo
&
L. Katie Mason
With its Feb. 21, 2007 holding in <i>Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts</i>, 127 S. Ct. 1105 (2007), the Supreme Court stepped in to resolve a Circuit Court split concerning a debtor's right to convert a Chapter 7 case to a Chapter 13 case under the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to ' 706(a) of the Code. On its face, ' 706(a) seems clear ' a debtor has an absolute, one-time right to conversion. Such clarity is, in the Supreme Court's view, hazy at best.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recording Agreements/Forum-Selection Clause; Royalty Claims/Letter of Inducement; TV Music Scores/Synchhornization Royalties.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
The Appellate Court of Conn-ecticut affirmed that the rap group Fort Knox failed to establish that a member's brother tortiously interfered with the group's business expectancy of entering into a recording contract with rap mogul Master P.
Features
Stanley M. Gibson
Frequently missing from the plethora of articles on the pitfalls and potential problems in electronic discovery data for the uninitiated or unaware is practical experience and analysis from the trenches. This article addresses key EDD issues and pitfalls in a particular case involving 44 million pages of electronic records and a jury verdict of about $570 million, with a focus on the consequences of retaining too much electronic information and ways to solve problems that plague large companies involved in e-discovery.
Features
Mary Alice Robbins
A judge in Alice, TX, has sealed two DVDs at the center of a legal fight being waged in two South Texas courts by the Coastal Bend College District against people who obtained copies of the discs.
Features
Michael R. Bandemer
Matters related to intellectual property ('IP') have become so common in our e-discovery and computer-forensics practice that when we tell our staff there's a new matter requiring our attention, the general response is typically: 'Let me guess ' another company where a former employee has left for a competitor or created a startup, and allegedly stole the company's key intellectual property to get a head start.' From that point, we delve into another adventure to hunt down the next smoking gun and, in some instances, the silver bullet.
Features
Allen L. Gurney
The author believes that the best e-discovery-review best practices should be characterized as the application of real-life lessons. He believes they are not complicated, and that focusing on a few of these learned lessons with a thoughtful, deliberate approach will achieve a truly effective electronic discovery review.
Features
Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta
&
Jeffrey D. Neuburger
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
Features
Tim Griffiths
With a vendor partner now in place to help remove the headaches associated with managing a review database, you should have it made it the shade. Hold on! You're certainly on the right track, but the job doesn't end once the vendor is chosen. There are still a number of technical items that need to be considered about this review environment before you can turn your entire review team loose on the data. An engineering assessment of the review environment itself will go a long way in helping identify potential problems and risks early on as well as becoming the first step toward a successful overall review. Following is a short checklist that can aid in this assessment process.
Features
John J. Weinholtz
&
Elizabeth A. Brophy
Attorneys have an ethical obligation to represent their clients zealously. Deposition preparation is key to that obligation. Preparing testifying witnesses educates and focuses them on important issues and facts of a case. This aside, the law regarding disclosure of work product provided to testifying witnesses is not well settled, and 'there is considerable room within which thoughtful judges can reach different conclusions.' <i>Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.</i>, 139 F.R.D. 384, 387 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Zealous representation, therefore, requires counsel to walk a line between witness preparation on one side and work product disclosure on the other. In so doing, counsel must also remain mindful of the line that exists between acceptable witness preparation and impermissible influencing of a witness. <i>State v. Earp</i>, 571 A.2d 1227, 1235 (Md. 1990). One misstep may lead to disclosure of counsel's mental impressions and strategy and, possibly, to serious sanctions.
