The eighth annual Georgetown Law Advanced eDiscovery Institute opened Thursday morning with a fast-paced case law update presented by six of the most well-known jurists in the legal industry: John Facciola (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia); Lee Rosenthal (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas); Andrew Peck, Shira Scheindlin, and James Francis (all three from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York), and David Waxse (U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas). Baltimore's Paul Grimm was scheduled to participate, but had a conflict and was unable to attend.
The almost-two hour session at the Ritz-Carlton in Arlington, Va., covered cases that illustrated a wide range of issues that were in consideration during 2011.
Francis started with the long-litigated Rambus cases. (Micron Tech, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F. 3d 1336 (Fed .Cir. 2011), and Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F. 3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011), which addressed the issue of when the duty to preserve kicks in, and what is reasonable anticipation of litigation. Francis described the "shredding parties" that Rambus held that were revealed during the litigation. "In some respects, [Rambus] was an easy case," he observed, because it was so dramatic.
But Rosenthal suggested that it is easier to jump to that conclusion after the fact. "The mystery comes in when you are trying to figure out -- not using hindsight, in real time -- if it's reasonable," observed Rosenthal. Scheindlin stressed that "reasonableness" is critical. "Was the conduct reasonable?" she asked, noting this can be a tough question for defendants.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Monica Bay
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment