Last time, we reviewed Judge Shira Scheindlin’s must-read decision in Pension Committee,1 in which she suggests that her series of Zubulake decisions (the last of which was issued in 2004) imposed a range of categorical e-discovery duties in the Southern District of New York and quite possibly beyond. Her Pension Committee decision warns that the breach of these post-Zubulake duties will almost invariably constitute “gross negligence” and subject litigants to the most severe of discovery sanctions.
But a recent decision by Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas—another luminary in the constellation of judges shaping the law of e-discovery—highlights that e-discovery standards remain unsettled and defy application of immutable and inflexible rules. Indeed, Judge Rosenthal’s opinion in Rimkus Consulting v. Cammarata2 notes that circuit splits have emerged on some fundamental e-discovery concepts.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
