Print

Print


Thanks Peter, very helpful.. as always!!  Have fun in Long Beach,
unfortunately I won't be attending this year.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kurilecz [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 1:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: ISO e-mail


In a message dated 8/20/2004 1:43:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Tracey Black
<[log in to unmask]> writes:

>> The complainants have said that the ISO's tactics are "obstructionist"
and
>> "misguided" and that legal precedent has held that the burden of
producing
>> the documents in a discovery request "belongs to the party upon whom the
>> discovery is served."
>> Furthermore, the party that is producing the relevant materials must
>> produce them in an organized fashion and labeled. "A responding party is
>> supposed to facilitate discovery, not hamper it," they said. The parties
>> have called the LICAP proposal "a convoluted LICAP mechanism" and urged
>> FERC to allow appropriate time for discovery.


there is tons of case law out there on this issue of discovery, Zubulake is
but the most recent one. this particular website allows you to search for
cases relevant to discovery spoliation and other records related issues.

http://www.crickettechnologies.com/


AND ITS FREE!

Here is an example from their database
 Search Again | Back to 10 search results


Super Film, Inc. v. UCB Films, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 649 (D. Kan. 2004).
(last updated: Mar/18/2004 11:42 am EST)

A party may not satisfy its burden of producing electronic information by
offering to simply make its computers available to the requesting party
because this process would improperly shift the cost of discovery to the
requesting party.


 and one more

St. Andrews Park, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. CORPS Engineers, 299 F.Supp.2d 1264
(S.D. Fla. 2003).
(last updated: Mar/11/2004 01:45 pm EST)

The court ruled that the defendant did not satisfy its burden of adequately
searching for all documents responsive to a discovery request. The plaintiff
had 37 e-mails provided from a third party and used them to show that at
least this many documents were omitted from production. The court stated
that searching the network server and not individual hard-drives of
employees was not adequate and ordered defendant to conduct a diligent
search for all responsive documents in any location.


--
Peter A. Kurilecz CRM, CA
Richmond, Va
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance