ADVERTISING MATERIAL
Print Bookmark

KMK's February 2015 E-Discovery Round-up

Good afternoon E-Discovery enthusiasts!  Welcome to KMK’s February 2015 E-Discovery Round-up. 

Today, we take a look at some well written, informative articles and a Colorado opinion where the prevailing party recovered $57,873.61 in E-Discovery costs!  Let’s dive in, shall we?

First up is an excellent resource for those interested in using Social Media in a civilly litigated context, posted by Keith Lee titled, “Social Media Subpoena Guide 2015 Edition.” Keith has really done his homework and the article is well researched, with a breakdown of the Stored Communications Act, types of communication classifications, recent related case law and helpful links to various social media subpoena/law enforcement pages.  If you use social media as evidence, or plan to, this article is well worth the few minutes that it would take to read it!

Next, another excellent resource for those of you looking to beef up your Big Data skill sets is Bernard Marr’s LinkedIn article, “How to Learn Big Data – For Free!”  Bernard points us to free online courses from the likes of Harvard, Stanford and California Institute of Technology.  Whether you are more interested in statistics, algorithmic design, machine learning or data visualization, Bernard points you in the right direction.  Some of the courses even offer certificates of completion and accreditation…and, it’s free!  You can’t beat that!

Last, but certainly not least, is a look at a case Josh Gilliland recently blogged about on his Bow Tie Law Blog in a post titled, “WHOA! A Prevailing Party Recovered $57,873.61 in eDiscovery Costs.” In it, Josh brings to light a fascinating E-Discovery case. In Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Leslea, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17878 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2015), the court awarded practically all the costs associated with “the services of a third party retrieving, restoring and converting data” to the prevailing party. In its opinion, the court relied on the authority found in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), and in FRCP 54(d)(1), wherein “a prevailing party is presumptively entitled to recover all of its costs.”  The court also gave a nod to proportionality in its opinion by citing Crandall v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1256 (D. Colo. 2009) in stating, “[t]he risks of being charged with the costs of complying with one’s own discovery requests encourages parties ‘to make narrow, focused discovery requests, rather than going on broad, potentially expensive, fishing expeditions.’” This is an interesting and well researched opinion that’s well worth a read! And hats off to Mr. Gilliland for highlighting this case on his blog!

Thanks for checking in to this month’s E-Discovery Round-up.  As always, if you find this article, interesting, please let people know by clicking the share link below.  And, if you would like to share your feedback or comments with me directly you can do so by clicking my contact link! 

Get Updates by Email

Topics

Subscribe to RSS

Recent Posts

Other KMK Blogs