KTLitSmart

  • Truth
    Legal Updates

    And The Truth, or Lack Thereof, Shall Set You Free - PART ONE

    In Part One of this blog series, I discuss a case that makes clear the importance of complying with discovery obligations. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s “extensive misconduct and deception, without any obvious contrition or awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct” posed a serious risk any further proceedings would be “plagued” by a similar pattern of discovery abuse and deception that would make “it impossible for the district court to conduct a trial with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available” and ordered Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed with prejudice. Indeed, although the old adage dictates that to the victor go the spoils, there are no spoils and no victory for one who engages in spoliation. 

  • Courthouse
    Legal Updates

    WARNING: Follow Your ESI Protocol Because the Court Will – PART ONE

    A lawsuit has been filed. Both parties have met and negotiated an ESI Protocol that has been formalized as a court order. Your review team has started the initial review and notices there are numerous duplicates. When this is brought to your attention, you discuss with your litigation support team and they suggest de-duplication and email threading as options. Which of the following would steps would be appropriate? In this blog, we'll dive into the next steps in this scenario and the importance of having an ESI Protocol in place.

  • Name Tag
    Technology Advantage

    Insight into Name Normalization: What Is Your Name?

    Assigning a single unique name to identify an individual has created problems that precede the inception of e-discovery. Think of Santa Claus, St. Nicholas, St. Nick, Noel or simply Santa. These variations are associated with a unique individual and yet, our society has been using different names to refer to him since before we were born. In e-discovery, identifying individuals with information relevant to a dispute is one of the first and most important steps we go through at the inception of a case. As such, the identification of the different names for these individuals is critical to ensuring we do not miss potentially relevant files. 

  • Phases
    Legal Updates

    Finding Proportionality in a Phased Approach to E-Discovery

    Two recent decisions highlight the usefulness of phased e-discovery as a tool to satisfy Rule 26(b)(1)’s ever-important proportionality requirement. Model orders for patent cases in numerous courts require phased discovery, typically phasing email discovery to occur after other discovery and only if deemed necessary. However, phased discovery is becoming prevalent in other types of cases as well.

  • Social Network
    Technology Advantage

    Collection Best Practices - How Multifaceted Software Has Changed E-Discovery

    As our work force has shifted to mobile and remote working practices (a trend in place before COVID, which only accelerated during the pandemic), businesses have turned to collaborative messaging tools such as Slack and various versions of Teams to manage communications. On the positive side, by using these messaging tools, organizations are able to more efficiently discuss ideas and brainstorm solutions. However, when an organization becomes involved in a dispute and those communications are potentially relevant to the dispute and need to be preserved and collected, the process may not be as straightforward as a simple email collection.

  • Gates
    Legal Updates

    So, Are the Gates Up or Down?: Liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in Van Buren v. United States and Your Business

    Seeking to resolve a split among the Circuits “regarding the scope of liability under the [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]’s “exceeds authorized access” clause, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the appeal of Robert Van Buren, a former Georgia police sergeant whose criminal conviction for violating the act was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit in 2019. Under the "gates-up or gates-down" threshold established by the Court's opinion, the access to information relevant to the question of civil or criminal liability under the CFAA is defined by IT permissions. Specifically, the question is now what files or folders within a computer system is an authorized user allowed to access and did that user exceed that authorized access?