Discussion of adequate privilege logs in In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-md-2734, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213493 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) and and strategies for using review applications.

<description>&lt;p&gt;Discussion of adequate privilege logs in &lt;em&gt;In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prods. Liab. Litig.,&lt;/em&gt; No. 3:16-md-2734, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213493 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) and and strategies for using review applications. &lt;/p&gt;</description>

Discussion of adequate privilege logs in In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-md-2734, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213493 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) and and strategies for using review applications.  

Adequate Privilege Logs for Corporate Parties

Case law summary of Radiologix, Inc. v. Radiology &amp; Nuclear Med., LLC, No. 15-4927-DDC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86964 (D. Kan. May 24, 2018).

<description>&lt;p&gt;Case law summary of Radiologix, Inc. v. Radiology &amp;amp; Nuclear Med., LLC, No. 15-4927-DDC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86964 (D. Kan. May 24, 2018).&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Case law summary of Radiologix, Inc. v. Radiology &amp; Nuclear Med., LLC, No. 15-4927-DDC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86964 (D. Kan. May 24, 2018). 

Court Ordered Search of Personal Email Used for Business

A discussion of <a href='https://wp.me/p7kqH7-2ax'>Echavarria v. Roach, </a>2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216021 (D. Mass. Dec. 26, 2018) on the production organization requires under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and the difference with 34(b)(2)(E)(ii).

<description>&lt;p&gt;A discussion of &lt;a href='https://wp.me/p7kqH7-2ax'&gt;Echavarria v. Roach, &lt;/a&gt;2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216021 (D. Mass. Dec. 26, 2018) on the production organization requires under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and the difference with 34(b)(2)(E)(ii).&lt;/p&gt;</description>

A discussion of Echavarria v. Roach, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216021 (D. Mass. Dec. 26, 2018) on the production organization requires under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and the difference with 34(b)(2)(E)(ii). 

Rule 34(b)(2)(E) Production Organization Requirements

Audio recording of my new CLE on Protecting Fictional Characters, presented at the Orange County Bar Association, on June 26, 2017. Here is the program description: Owners and creators of fictional characters run the gambit in protecting their works of art from outright infringers to fan films. This seminar will address case studies in protecting fictional characters, from the Vampira/Elvira litigation, to Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, and the fan film Star Trek Axanar. The material will cover what works of art are protected, what are not, and what is allowable for fan films.

<description>&lt;p&gt;Audio recording of my new CLE on Protecting Fictional Characters, presented at the Orange County Bar Association, on June 26, 2017. Here is the program description: Owners and creators of fictional characters run the gambit in protecting their works of art from outright infringers to fan films. This seminar will address case studies in protecting fictional characters, from the Vampira/Elvira litigation, to Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, and the fan film Star Trek Axanar. The material will cover what works of art are protected, what are not, and what is allowable for fan films.&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Audio recording of my new CLE on Protecting Fictional Characters, presented at the Orange County Bar Association, on June 26, 2017. Here is the program description: Owners and creators of fictional characters run the gambit in protecting their works of art from outright infringers to fan films. This seminar will address case studies in protecting fictional characters, from the Vampira/Elvira litigation, to Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, and the fan film Star Trek Axanar. The material wil...

Protecting Fictional Characters 

Case law discussion of Hawa v. Coatesville Area Sch. Dist., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37675, where the Defendants sought 80% cost-shifting for their discovery costs based on purported undue burden because the data was not reasonably accessible.

<description>&lt;p&gt;Case law discussion of Hawa v. Coatesville Area Sch. Dist., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37675, where the Defendants sought 80% cost-shifting for their discovery costs based on purported undue burden because the data was not reasonably accessible.&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Case law discussion of Hawa v. Coatesville Area Sch. Dist., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37675, where the Defendants sought 80% cost-shifting for their discovery costs based on purported undue burden because the data was not reasonably accessible. 

Failure to Show Good Cause for Cost Shifting 

Joshua Gilliland, Esq., from the Bow Tie Law blog, discusses eDiscovery concepts including form of production, undue burden, search terms, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Bow Tie Law eDiscovery Podcasts

Details

Recent Episodes