Over the past year, there have been so many articles that focus upon the proliferation of artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies in e-discovery, and the legal field in general, as well as numerous articles regarding the projected implications of the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to e-discovery that took effect on Dec. 1, 2015, that it seems sometimes that a very basic aspect of e-discovery practice and litigation has been overlooked: the skill and understanding of practitioners and courts. In this month’s article, I will discuss those qualities, focusing upon the recent opinion in Venturedyne v. Carbonyx, No. 2:14-CV-351-RL-JEM (N.D.Ind. Nov. 15), to illustrate how such skills and understanding are essential to a party’s success in prevailing in e-discovery matters, to the court in ruling upon them and, if anyone cares, to uncovering the truth.
Background
Venturedyne’s complaint alleged that it, doing business as “scientific dust collectors,” contracted with Carbonyx “to supply dust collection systems” and various services to support Carbonyx’s contract with U.S. Steel. Venturedyne provided the specified equipment and services; Carbonyx failed to pay for them.
This content has been archived.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]
