Friday, June 1, 2012

Can You Recover Costs for E-Discovery Services as an Expense of Litigation



http://ow.ly/bicwI

An article by Michael Palumbo posted on the jsslaw.com website of the law firm Jennings Strouss.

The article discusses whether eDiscovery costs are recoverable as a taxation against the losing party in litigation.

The article provides commentary on several cases that examine the issue of cost recovery of eDiscovery expenses.

The article states in conclusion, "In conclusion, the take away point, at least for cases that are litigated under the Arizona cost recovery statute, is that without an agreement that the prevailing party will be entitled to recover the costs of services provided by e-discovery consultants, expenses for such services are not likely to be recoverable. Similarly, for cases litigated under federal rules and statutes, an agreement pursuant to Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will be necessary to recover for the services of e-discovery consultants."

Thursday, May 31, 2012

2012 Am Law 200


http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202553410404








The Second Hundred chalked up a healthy increase in revenue per lawyer in 2011, but costs kept gains in profits small. The Second Hundred's revenue per lawyer rose 5.3 percent and value per lawyer rose 4.7 percent, but profits per partner rose just 2.2 percent, less than The Am Law 100's 3 percent. The Second Hundred's total gross revenue in 2011 was $17.93 billion, a 2.7 percent gain outpaced by The Am Law 100's 5.3 percent gain. For the complete list of the second Hundred click the link above.

Hot Off The Press - Today's New NLRB Social Media Guidance



http://ow.ly/bgHFW

An article by Michael Schmidt posted on the Social Media Law Employment Blog of the law firm Cozen O'Connor.

This article looks at the just released 3rd memorandum providing guidance for social media regulation in the workplace that was issued by the National Labor Relations Board.

The article states, "The first guidance memorandum on August 18, 2011 was focused primarily on adverse employment decisions based on employee social media activity, with a smaller discussion about the scope of social media policies. The second memorandum on January 24, 2012 also addressed adverse employment action, but contained a more detailed analysis of the do’s and don’ts of workplace policies.

Today’s third memorandum is devoted exclusively to the NLRB’s updated thoughts on seven employer social media policies on which the agency has recently issued administrative rulings".  Links to the other two referenced memorandum are provided in the article.

There are 7 cases addressed in the memorandum  that show examples to illustrate the limits of social media regulation.  In 6 of the cases some form of the policy was upheld as lawful, in the 7th case the entire policy was deemed invalid.

The article by Mr. Schmidt provides bullet points that help illustrate what policies are deemed impermissibly overbroad policy provisions according to the NLRB and what is deemed permissible as well.







Should we all be getting the Twitter 'jitters'? – Be careful what you say online



http://ow.ly/bgEpd

An article by Susan McLean and Alistair Maughan posted on the Morrison Foerster  website as a Client Alert

This article is specific to UK law, and looks at various UK laws that are being re-purposed, and used to regulate the use of Twitter and social media posts.

The article mentions the following UK laws and regulations, which have been used in connection to "Tweets" posted on Twitter, although such laws were not originally established for such a reason:


COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2003 (Artilce states: "In 2011, there were 2,000 prosecutions in the UK under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.");
MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988;
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981;
SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2007; and
DEFAMATION ACT 1996

The article states, "As in other countries, a whole host of UK laws that were designed in an age before social media – even, in some cases, far before the Internet as we know it – are now being used to regulate digital speech. Digital speech, by its very nature, has permanent records that are easily searchable, making the police and the prosecution’s job much easier. Accordingly, these types of cases are only going to increase, and it will be interesting to see where the UK courts decide to draw the line between freedom of expression and the law."

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

U.S. Cross Border Ediscovery vs. EU Data Protection: Clash of the Titans



http://ow.ly/beWvp

An article by Monique Altheim posted on the EDiscovery Map blog.

This article provides insight into the conflict between EU privacy protections and US eDiscovery obligations. The article provides a link to a deck of powerpoint slides that the author used at a recent presentation she provided at the Legal Tech West conference which was subtitled "Clash of the Titans".  The article also provides a link to presentations the author was involved in at the recent CPDP conference held in Brussels.

The article states, "The subtitle “Clash of the Titans” derives from the fact that on the one hand the U.S. has the broadest pre-trial civil litigation discovery procedure on earth, while on the other hand the EU has the most stringent data protection framework on the planet. Trying to collect and transfer terabytes of data, most of which contain personal components, in the EU, where data protection is a fundamental right and very heavily regulated, is indeed quite a challenge.
In this presentation, I analyzed the U.S. jurisprudence on the extra-territorial application of U.S. ediscovery obligations as well as the EU guidelines concerning personal data collected while conducting U.S. civil ediscovery in the EEA."

Among the slides included in the referenced slide deck was the following slide, which provides a foundation for the discussion about the inherent conflict between the EU and the US on this topic:



International e-discovery: Privacy and data protection across the globe



http://ow.ly/beVBJ

An article by Wayne Wong posted on the insidecounsel.com website.

This article examines differences in privacy rights throughout the globe, and looks at issues to keep in mind when dealing with eDiscovery matters in varied jurisdictions.

The article states, "More and more, companies with global operations—and the lawyers that represent them—are finding themselves enmeshed in legal matters around the world. Developing an ironclad international legal skill set begins by building a greater understanding of e-discovery, privacy and data protection laws across the globe."

The article goes on to examine rules that govern the following areas:  United States; England & Wales; EU; Canada; and Asia (APAC).




Tuesday, May 29, 2012

What Does Successful Information Governance Across Europe Look Like?



http://ow.ly/bdjQg

A link to a PDF Document provided the DLM Forum, providing tips on suggested Best Practices for Information Governance Policies. The link provides a detailed overview of the DLM Forum, and what recommendations it has regarding effective information governance practices. An illustration from the document is provided below: