Part II of II. Part one can be found here.
Last week, I began a discussion of Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97018 (S.D.N.Y. November 2008), in which Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on plaintiffs’ requests for production of different kinds of metadata. To provide technical and legal background needed to understand the court’s ruling, I reviewed how e-discovery is produced, different kinds of metadata and their relevance to e-discovery review, and how the form of production influences the substance that can be produced, particularly regarding metadata. This week, we will explore how the court in Aguilar applied those principles to plaintiffs’ requests for metadata.
The Opinion
This content has been archived.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]
