December 16, 2020
A new case has brought into the spotlight the risks responding parties face when entering into ESI protocols with detailed disclosure obligations regarding technology-assisted review (“TAR”). In In re Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 2020), the court refused to approve a responding party’s proposed TAR process and insisted that the design and execution of a TAR workflow required “an unprecedented degree of transparency” between the responding and requesting parties.
November 23, 2020
We are at the five-year mark of rules changes designed to emphasize proportionality in federal civil discovery practice. Since December 1, 2015, many courts have examined the six proportionality factors memorialized in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) to measure the appropriateness of discovery. Of those factors, cost—the expense and time required to comply with a discovery response—remains the most significant in terms of determining whether a responding party must comply with a disputed discovery request.
November 4, 2020
While most of America, and the world, have been focused on the U.S. Presidential election, voters in California have quietly approved the most sweeping privacy and data protection law in the United States. The California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA” or the “Act”) will be replacing the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) that just came into effect earlier this year.
October 28, 2020
Organizations have begun to realize the value of implementing defensible disposition programs to eliminate data that has low value. When properly handled, disposition programs can reduce the costs and risks associated with retaining data stockpiles. However, disposition initiatives that lack safeguards to ensure relevant information is preserved for litigation could leave an organization vulnerable to disaster. The recent terminating sanctions order from Estate of Moreno v. Correctional Healthcare Companies spotlights this point, along with key steps companies should consider to ensure disposition initiatives are truly defensible.
September 21, 2020
A new technology-assisted review (TAR) case—Livingston v. City of Chicago—provides instructive guidance on any number of key issues surrounding the use of TAR. From affirming the notion of Sedona Principle Six and approving the use of search terms to pre-cull a data set to emphasizing the importance of not holding TAR to a higher standard than other search and review methods, Livingston provides additional clarity on issues sometimes clouded by conflicting TAR case law.