<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
		<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='http://www.kmklaw.com/rss.xsl?1328919677'?>
		<rss version='2.0' 
			xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
			xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
		<channel>
			<title>Electronic Discovery Road Map</title>     
			<link>http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/</link>
			<atom:link href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
			<description></description>
			
			<item>
				<title>Ex Parte Discovery Permitted in Website Trademark Infringement and Defamation Case</title>
				<pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
				<link>http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/Ex-Parte-Discovery-Permitted</link>
				<guid>http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/147</guid>
				<dc:creator>Robert C. Lesan, III</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>The recent decision of a Utah District Court has opened the door to ex parte discovery in cases involving website content.&nbsp; In 1524948 Alberta Ltd. V. Joe Doe 1-50, No. 10-900 (D. Utah September 23, 2010), the plaintiff alleged that certain website content infringed on its trademark and was defamatory.&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/Ex-Parte-Discovery-Permitted'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,branding'>Branding</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,e-discovery'>E-Discovery</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,Federal-Rule'>Federal Rule</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,intellectual-property'>Intellectual Property</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,litigation'>Litigation</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,Rule26'>Rule 26</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Zubulake Revisited:  Six Years Later</title>
				<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/Zubulake-revisited-ediscovery-scheindlin</link>
				<guid>http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/74</guid>
				<dc:creator>Robert C. Lesan, III</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>A recent case out of the Southern District of New York sheds additional light on the issue of defining negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the e-discovery context, and gives insight into what types of conduct fall in each of those categories.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/Zubulake-revisited-ediscovery-scheindlin'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,e-discovery'>E-Discovery</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,edd-processing'>EDD Processing</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,electronic-data-discovery'>Electronic Data Discovery</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,email-retention'>Email Retention</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,litigation'>Litigation</a>, <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,zubulake'>Zubulake</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Practice Tip:  Create a Clean Transaction Record</title>
				<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/transaction-records</link>
				<guid>http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/44</guid>
				<dc:creator>Robert C. Lesan, III</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>I’m the only deal lawyer on the E-Discovery Task Force, so I come at issues from a slightly different perspective than the rest of the group.&nbsp; In addition to the important litigation discovery issues brought about by electronic document creation, transmission and storage, there are numerous practical issues to consider.&nbsp; Take, for example, the issue of creating and maintaining clear transaction records.</p>
<p><a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/transaction-records'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://e-discovery.kmklaw.com/topic,e-discovery'>E-Discovery</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
		</channel>
		</rss>
		
