GEEKSPEAK
Since my column last month, “E-Discovery Cooperation — Catching Even More Flies with Honey,” in which I discussed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s 2011 opinion in Pippins v. KPMG, many online journals and bloggers have noted and weighed in on the opinion, in which Magistrate Judge James L. Cott denied KPMG’s motion to preserve a sampling of only 100 hard drives that could contain relevant data, as opposed to the 2,500 hard drives the defendant had been preserving at the cost of $1.5 million and an additional 6,500 it might have to preserve. Instead, the court ordered preservation of all 9,000 hard drives.
This content has been archived.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]
