What Attorneys Don't Know Can Hurt Their Cases
The distinction between e-discovery and discovery becomes less and less useful as technology becomes more deeply embedded in our daily lives and businesses.
January 05, 2015 at 06:30 AM
5 minute read
The distinction between e-discovery and discovery becomes less and less useful as technology becomes more deeply embedded in our daily lives and businesses. Regardless of the name, because of the pervasiveness of electronic evidence, attorneys must find ways to control the costs of discovering and producing electronically stored information (ESI).
To be sure, the costs associated with the discovery of ESI and the presentation of electronic evidence at trial can be staggering. In Abbott Point of Care v. Epocal, a recent case involving claims of patent infringement and tortious interference with employment contracts, the defendant submitted a bill for costs of $550,348 following a jury verdict in its favor. Two line items accounted for more than half of the bill: $175,390 for “e-discovery database charges” incurred during discovery and another $165,108 for similar charges incurred during trial. Abbott, No. CV–08–S–543–NE, 2012 WL 7810970at *2 (Nov. 5, 2012).
Such disproportionately high costs for data management should give us pause because they fly in the face of what we might expect from the efficiencies and cost savings provided by computers, networks and databases. Why have the same technologies that make it easier and less expensive to run a business increased by an order of magnitude the costs of discovery and litigation?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllE-Discovery Law Update: Georgia Lawyer Disbarred After Putting Fake Email Into Evidence
5 minute readE-Discovery Law Update: Georgia Lawyer Disbarred After Putting Fake Email Into Evidence
5 minute readLaw Firms' E-Discovery Centers See Growing Business From Other Firms, Clients
6 minute readSoutheast E-Discovery Leaders Say Generative AI Needs More Development for Their Use
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250