Box Score: Justice 1, Bullies 0

http://ow.ly/8Ugv0

An article by Craig Ball, Esq. on his blog Ball in Your Court.

This article discusses the recent Pippins v. KPMG case.  Another article posted on law.com that discusses this same case was also posted on the litigation support technology and news blog earlier today.

Mr. Ball's article applauds the recent court order and states, "KPMG trotted out vague proportionality arguments and went so far as to argue that the plaintiffs themselves–the Audit Associates suing for the overtime–weren’t key players. The court termed the argument “nonsense;” and truly, if the roles were reversed, wouldn’t KPMG argue that plaintiffs are parties, parties are key players and key players must preserve evidence? Sauce! Goose! Gander! Honk!

Pulling no punches, Judge McMahon characterized KPMG’s conduct as “hiding behind the stay of discovery” She wrote, “KPMG has inappropriately used the discovery stay as a shield, relying on it in refusing to produce even a few hard drives so Plaintiffs could examine them. Judge Cott put it perfectly: ‘At this point it is not entirely clear what the hard drives contain, in part because of KPMG’s own efforts to keep that information at bay.’”"

Don’t Overlook the Document Review Guidelines

http://ow.ly/8U5ia

An article by Daryl Shetterly posted on the e-Discovery Myth on the LeClair Ryan website.

This article discusses the document review process, and looks at certain issues that should be considered important factors that need to be addressed in any document review.  The article looks at the following topics, and narrative is provided around each:

• Content
• Form
• Timing
• Input 
• Guideline Changes
• Version Control

KPMG Loses E-Discovery Appeal in 'Pippins' Labor Case

http://ow.ly/8TZ5z

An article by Evan Koblentz posted on law.com on the LTN webpage.

This article discusses the recent labor case Pippins v. KPMG, and a link to information about the case is provided in the article.

This case has received a great deal of attention, based on the magistrate's wide-reaching preservation order.  A recent appeal had hoped to vacate the magistrate's order, and the Judge had also hoped that the dispute in question would become moot based on further discussion by the parties.  However, the discovery disputes are not being resolved by the parties, and the court had to recently render an order.  The article states, "It smacks of chutzpah ... to argue that the Magistrate failed to balance the costs and benefits of preservation when KPMG refused to cooperate with that analysis by providing the very item that would, if examined, demonstrate whether there was any benefit at all to preservation," McMahon asserted.

"KPMG could have established [that producing all the drives was unnecessary] by producing several hard drives to Plaintiffs and Magistrate Judge Cott. ... But KPMG has established nothing of the sort," McMahon stated.

McMahon added, "Even assuming that KPMG's preservation costs are both accurate and wholly attributable to this litigation -- which I cannot verify -- I cannot possibly balance the costs and benefits of preservations when I'm missing one side of the scale (the benefits).""

Ooops, They Did it Again -- Jurors Continue to Improperly Use the Internet, and Courts Struggle with Solutions

http://ow.ly/8TDZn

An article by Mara E. Zazzali-Hogan posted on the ediscoverylawalert.com website.

This article discusses Juror's use of computer technology, including social media networks, and what courts are trying to do to control this type of behavior.

The article states, "All over the country, courts are struggling with how best to prevent juror communications and/or research on the Internet, including on social media such as Facebook. What's the solution? Thus far, there is no clear answer, as evidenced by a recent New Jersey case in which a juror dodged sanctions for contempt after researching a child sex-crime case involving a former pastor on the Internet -- even after being instructed to refrain from such Internet research. " A link about the specific referenced case is provided in the article."

Live at LegalTech: That’s a Wrap, But the Predictive Coding Debate Is Only Heating up

http://ow.ly/8Sj9P

An article by Christopher Danzig posted on the Above the Law Website.

This article discusses comments made at recent panel sessions held at the Legal Tech Conference in New York City.  The article states, "The panel, which consisted of Wachtell Lipton counsel Maura Grossman, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck(S.D.N.Y.), and Jackson Lewis partner Ralph Losey began by examining all the problems with human review."

The article focuses primarily regarding remarks made about predictive coding, and how it will impact the attorney review process.

E-Discovery Cost Recovery in the Digital Age

http://ow.ly/8S84r

An article by H. Christopher Boehning and Daniel J. Toal published on the law.com website on the LTN webpage.

This article discusses the issues involved in seeking recovery of costs for eDiscovery expenses incurred during litigation.

The article references the factors involved in whether costs are recoverable and provides specific topics to consider.  The article states, "The question that remains is what e-discovery costs are recoverable. Courts confronting this question have identified five elements that a party must establish to tax its adversary with e-discovery costs: (1) the party seeking costs must have been the "prevailing party"; (2) the costs must stem from a modern equivalent of "copying"; (3) the costs must have been necessary; (4) the costs must be reasonable; and (5) the costs must be sufficiently documented to support the other elements.

Although these elements provide a useful analytical framework, they provide an uncertain guide as to how courts will actually rule on requests to recover e-discovery costs."

EU probes new Google privacy policy

http://ow.ly/8Rl9y

An article by AP published on the Las Vegas Sun's website.

This article discusses the EU's reaction to Google's recent revisions to its' privacy policy.  Google intended to role out the new privacy policy as of March 1, however the article states, "In a letter to Google Chief Executive Larry Page, Jacob Kohnstamm, the chairman of the group of 27 national privacy regulators in the EU, said the French data protection agency has launched an investigation into the new rules and how they will affect Google users in the EU.

"We call for a pause (in the rollout of the new rules) in the interests of ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding about Google's commitments to information rights of their users and EU citizens, until we have completed our analysis," Kohnstamm wrote in the letter, which was sent Thursday and published on Friday."