Introduction
I must begin this month's article with an apology, specifically for this article's confusing title. I have to believe that virtually every reader of this article must be confused and wonder why I am writing as if e-discovery has disappeared. I well understand the confusion. The thesis of the article is not that e-discovery has somehow evaporated, but rather that the thinking in the legal world regarding e-discovery has so changed that, as with many other ideas (and the tools that helped those ideas to flourish) that were once novel—that communications could travel thousands of miles over telephone lines, for example—those ideas and tools lost their novelty as those in the legal community became comfortable with them and thought of them as simply different ways of articulating ideas and tools long used in the legal world.What Remains of E-Discovery: Expertise With E-Discovery and Its Tools
The thesis of the article is not that e-discovery has somehow evaporated, but rather that the thinking in the legal world regarding e-discovery has so changed that, as with many other ideas (and the tools that helped those ideas to flourish) that were once novel—that communications could travel thousands of miles over telephone lines.
November 24, 2021 at 11:24 AM
10 minute read
|
Introduction
I must begin this month's article with an apology, specifically for this article's confusing title. I have to believe that virtually every reader of this article must be confused and wonder why I am writing as if e-discovery has disappeared. I well understand the confusion. The thesis of the article is not that e-discovery has somehow evaporated, but rather that the thinking in the legal world regarding e-discovery has so changed that, as with many other ideas (and the tools that helped those ideas to flourish) that were once novel—that communications could travel thousands of miles over telephone lines, for example—those ideas and tools lost their novelty as those in the legal community became comfortable with them and thought of them as simply different ways of articulating ideas and tools long used in the legal world.
This content has been archived.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 AllPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
4 minute readMorgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 2The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
- 3Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 4The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 5Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
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