Leonard Deutchman

June 03, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

Attorneys for whom I consult will often ask me what the best way is to learn how to request e-discovery. I usually joke, "Other than taking one of my CLEs?" and then tell them that the best way to learn what to ask for in e-discovery is to have to produce it.

By Leonard Deutchman

8 minute read

May 06, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

It has been more than 18 months since the American Bar Association amended its comment to Rule 1.1, pertaining to competence, to require that lawyers "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." In my last column, we discussed how to learn about e-discovery, some general rules involving it and how to build a map of the data universe from which you will have to produce responsive documents and withhold privileged ones. In this month's column, we will discuss the ethics of preservation and collection, searching and review.

By Leonard Deutchman

9 minute read

April 01, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

It has been more than 18 months since the American Bar Association amended its comment to Rule 1.1, pertaining to competence, to include the following important language:

By Leonard Deutchman

8 minute read

March 04, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

The comment period on the proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure closed Feb. 15. As that date approached, many parties weighed in, not all of them agreeing on everything, but all pretty much approving of the changes to Rule 26(b)(1), which repositions the requirement that the discovery demand be proportional to the value of the matter, and Rule 37(e), which appears to make it harder to prove a producing party liable for spoliation and which restricts the sanctions and other restorative measures a court can impose or require upon a finding of spoliation.

By Leonard Deutchman

8 minute read

February 04, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

In American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found constitutional the ongoing program of the National Security Agency and FBI to obtain telephony metadata in bulk from telephone carriers and Internet service providers.

By Leonard Deutchman

8 minute read

January 07, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

In Klayman v. Obama,, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined the National Security Agency and FBI from receiving telephonic metadata in bulk from telephone carriers and Internet service providers under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Patriot Act.

By Leonard Deutchman

11 minute read

December 03, 2013 | The Legal Intelligencer

It is hardly news that amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been proposed and are generating considerable reaction. A careful look at some of them, however, will make the reader wonder whether the amendments are actually adding anything or are adding a great deal not by what they say but by what they imply. In this month's column, we will look at the proposed changes to Rule 26(b).

By Leonard Deutchman

8 minute read

November 05, 2013 | The Legal Intelligencer

Like many of you reading this column, I get bombarded with emails that provide links to innumerable articles and opinion pieces about e-discovery.

By Leonard Deutchman

8 minute read

May 18, 2010 | The Legal Intelligencer

In last week's column, I wrote about cases from the 1st, 4th and 7th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal that applied the plain view doctrine to computer searches. This column discusses the 9th Circuit's opinion in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, which rejected the doctrine, and looks at the pros and cons of both approaches. Comprehensive Drug Testing concerned the well-known "Balco," or Bay Area Lab Cooperative, investigation by the federal government of steroid use by Major League Baseball players, particularly those who were suspected of having received steroids from Balco.

By Leonard Deutchman

25 minute read

February 22, 2010 | Corporate Counsel

In an earlier article, attorney Leonard Deutchman discussed how a Delaware court relied upon unjustifiable technical conclusions to find a defendant in contempt of court for wiping the unallocated space on a hard drive. He now examines the court's legal conclusions and their implications.

By Leonard Deutchman

24 minute read