Topics
- Privacy
- Social Media
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- E-Discovery Case Law
- 2006 FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
- Digital copier hard drive security
- Native Format of Documents
- Cloud Computing
- Technology
- Zubulake
- Email Retention
- Sedona Conference
- Rule 34
- Rule 26
- Rule 1
- Federal Rule
- Cooperation Proclamation
- Risk Assessment
- Electronic Data Discovery
- EDD Processing
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- TREC Legal Track
- Litigation
- ESI
- E-Discovery
- Outsourcing
- Document Review
Contributors
Subscribe to RSS
Recent Posts
- Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
- Always Have A Plan
- Your E-Discovery GPS: Are You on the Right Track?
- "Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
- Oh the stories a copier can tell!
- Does Your Law Firm Follow ESI Best Practices
- What do you think?
- Reserve Your Rights: Always Ask for Native
- Recent Court Ruling Could Impact Who Pays the Cost of Producing Electronic Discovery
- Got Your Head Up In the Clouds? Additional Concerns Over Cloud Computing
Other KMK Blogs
"Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
For anyone with a few minutes, I would highly recommend reviewing Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., a recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In this case, which was originally a patent dispute, the court imposed a $8.5 million sanction against Qualcomm as a result of “massive” e-discovery failures, the fundamental root of which was “an incredible breakdown in communication.”
CONTACT:
Jamie M. Goetz-Anderson
Reasonableness in Electronic Discovery
In a world of tightening budgets and greater scrutiny, how do litigants act reasonably while still fully prosecuting or defending a case? Is it possible to thoroughly address e-discovery issues without breaking the bank?
TAGS: Cooperation Proclamation, E-Discovery, Electronic Data Discovery, ESI, Litigation, Sanctions, Sedona Conference, Zubulake
CONTACT:
Brenna L. K. Penrose