Author: K&L Gates

Despite Alleged Budget Constraints, Government Ordered to Continue to Pay for Database to Avoid Prejudice to Criminal Defendants

May 13, 2014 / July 10, 2014 by K&L Gates

United States v. Shabudin, No. 11-cr-00664-JSW-1 (NJV), 2014 WL 1379717 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014) In this criminal case, the Government was ordered to continue to maintain a Relativity Database (the “Database”) utilized by the parties to review documents produced by the Government and to continue to provide Defendants with the access and support that... Continue Reading

Proposed Rule 37(e) Draft Committee Note Now Available

May 12, 2014 / July 10, 2014 by K&L Gates

As previously discussed on this blog, proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were recently approved by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for submission to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Standing Committee”). At the time of approval, the Committee Note for Proposed Rule 37(e) remained “under construction.” The... Continue Reading

FEDERAL RULES AMENDMENTS NEWS & UPDATES

State Bar of California Issues Interim Opinion on Attorneys’ Ethical Duties in the “Handling of Discovery of [ESI]” – Public Comment Invited

May 6, 2014 / July 10, 2014 by K&L Gates

The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has issued Formal Opinion Interim No. 11-0004 (ESI and Discovery Requests) for public comment. By analyzing a hypothetical fact pattern, the interim opinion addresses the following question: “What are an attorney’s ethical duties in the handling of discovery of electronically stored information?” Public... Continue Reading

Starting Discovery with a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition into “Manner and Methods” Used to Store ESI “Puts the Cart before the Horse”

April 29, 2014 / July 10, 2014 by K&L Gates

Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., No. 2:13-cv-1419 JWS, 2014 WL 1456349 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2014) In this case, Plaintiffs determined that they would “need to discover electronically stored information” and sought first to compel the defendant to “participate in a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the manner and methods used by Defendant to store... Continue Reading