In the previous column I reviewed two recent e-discovery decisions, the Jan. 15 decision by U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Shira A. Scheindlin in Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of America Securities and the Feb. 19 decision by U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas Lee H. Rosenthal Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata. Both focused on the issue of how to gauge the relevance of e-discovery lost by the producing party at the prejudice of that loss to the requesting party when the e-discovery is, by definition, lost and so unknown.
We reviewed the facts in both matters and Pension Committee’s approach of creating presumptions of relevance and prejudice when the data is lost due to the gross negligence or willfulness of the producing party. This week, we will analyze Rimkus’ approach, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both and place them in the context of unfolding e-discovery jurisprudence.
Strengths And Weaknesses
This content has been archived.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]
