The travails of the lawyers dubbed the “Qualcomm Six” by law blogs reporting on a dispute over fault for alleged e-discovery abuses, provide a graduate-level course for attorneys conducting discovery in an age of electronic data storage – and for their clients.
In Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., Case No. 05cv1958-B (BLM) (S.D. Calif. Jan. 7, 2008) Major, M.J. (48 pages) [retrieved online at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/qualcomm0108.pdf], U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major sanctioned Qualcomm for “suppressing” (the court’s term) approximately 46,000 electronic files which had been requested but not produced in discovery and which, apparently, were virtually dispositive, adversely to Qualcomm on one of the matter’s key issues. The court also sanctioned six counsel retained by Qualcomm. The retained attorneys appealed to U.S. District Judge Rudi M. Brewster in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., Case No. 05cv1958-RMB (BLM) (S.D. Calif. March 5, 2008) Brewster, J. (6 pages) [retrieved online at http://ralphlosey.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/qualcommordervacatingsanctions.pdf], challenging Qualcomm’s assertion of attorney-client privilege which had barred them from defending their conduct before the magistrate.
This content has been archived.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]
