Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Around the Block: 12/24/2009

Posted by rjbiii on December 24, 2009

I hope everyone is enjoying their holiday (in fact, I hope you hard working folks are getting a holiday). Here are some articles from industry blogs and other sites:

Bow Tie Law has a post concerning a dispute over the admissibility of an email. From the article:

The Plaintiff attempted to exclude an email string pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence 402 (Relevancy), 403 (Prejudice), 608 (Character Evidence/Witness Conduct), and 609 (Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of a Crime). Park, at *8.

The email string contained the statement, “I was hoping that her friends would want to have sex with [sic] me after they saw the ring.” Park, at *8. As one can imagine, the Plaintiffs argued the email was irrelevant and highly prejudicial if it somehow was relevant. Park, at *8.

Readers may recall that Post Process featured a Case Blurb on E-mail authentication from Judge Grimm’s opinion in Lorraine v. Markel Amer. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007).

On the CYB3RCRIM3 blog, Professor Susan Brenner discusses double jeopardy and dual sovereignty in the case of a stock trader accused of manipulating securities prices, computer fraud and identity theft.

Legal Holds and Trigger Events, a blog I just found, has posted an article discussing a case where a judge becomes suspicious of Producing Party’s lack of evidence. Suspicious judges are a bad thing for your client. From the article:

Here, a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi, openly suspicious of defendants’ lack of evidence, orders defendant to pay for the services of a third-party e-discovery expert to answer some very basic questions posed by the court. Procedurally, the court was entertaining plaintiffs’ motions to strike and for sanctions. The court declined to order sanctions, but nevertheless takes defendant to task for failing to come forward with what exactly was done to preserve ESI and search ESI in response to plaintiffs’ discovery demands.

Note: I have added this blog the Blogroll.

The National Law Journal has an article describing Southeastern Mechanical Services Inc. v. Brody, No. 8:08-CV-1151, 2009 WL 2883057 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2009), in which the court imposed sanctions on a party for wiping a blackberry. H/T to Inter Alia.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: