About This Blog
Summaries, news and resources relating to eDiscovery in Delaware and beyond.
With the continuing push for more prolific and creative use of technology in Kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms, student data has become more valuable, and the protection of that data of greater concern. In the face of the perceived need for greater protection of student data, the Delaware General Assembly, on June 25, 2015, approved SS1 for SB 79 (the “Student Data Privacy Protection Act” or “SDPPA”). Expressly modeled on California’s Student Online Personal Information Privacy Act, the SDPPA is designed to prohibit educational technology service providers from selling student data, using student data to engage in targeted advertising to students and their families, or creating student profiles for non-educational purposes. More ›
Online businesses take note. Delaware may finally have an online privacy law. On June 25, 2015, the Delaware General Assembly passed SS1 for SB68, known as the “Delaware Online Privacy and Protection Act.” If signed by the governor, DOPPA will go into effect on January 1, 2016. More ›
Join us for a webinar on the new DRAA.
June 24, 2015 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM EST
The enactment of the Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act (the "DRAA") is a breakthrough in the quest for an efficient, cost-effective and timely process to resolve business disputes, This webinar explains how the DRAA differs from traditional arbitration by providing a fast resolution that avoids the expense of extensive pre-hearing discovery, disputes over arbitration solution and multiple appeals. More ›
This is the third in a series of posts summarizing the 7 most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2014.
Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler v. Robert Howard-Anderson, Steven Krausz, Robert Abbott, Robert Bylin, Thomas Pardun, Brian Strom, Albert Moyer, Jeanne Seeley, and Occam Networks, Inc., C.A. No. 5878–VCL, Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies and for Sanctions Against Defendants and the Court's Rulings, September 4, 2014.
While the Chen v. Howard-Anderson case has been discussed in the corporate arena as an important case relating to Delaware fiduciary law, 102(b)(7) exculpatory provisions, and Revlon duties, the case also highlights the importance of transparency in the discovery process. Chen is a reminder of how seriously the Courts in Delaware treat counsel’s discovery obligations. More ›
Morris James LLP is pleased to announce that R. Eric Hacker has joined the firm’s Georgetown office as an associate in its Real Estate and Business Litigation practice groups. His practice will focus on residential and commercial real estate, and commercial litigation. More ›
Many attorneys view eDiscovery as merely something they “have to do.” On Episode 5, we speak to Ian McCauley, Morris James’ eDiscovery coordinator about jettisoning this and other misconceptions about eDiscovery practice. Instead, Ian suggests that effective eDiscovery practice can be a valuable litigation tool, and that attorneys should focus on how eDiscovery can help, not hinder, their case. We’ll talk to Ian about the role of an eDiscovery coordinator in a larger litigation group, the Delaware courts’ attitudes toward eDiscovery, and certain eDiscovery issues that often arise in corporate and commercial cases. More ›
Morris James LLP is pleased to announce that fourteen attorneys in six separate practice areas have been ranked among the leading Delaware lawyers in the 2015 edition of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business. The Chancery, Intellectual Property and Labor & Employment practice areas also received recognition from Chambers USA. More ›
Delaware Super Lawyers® magazine has recognized four Morris James partners as top legal counsel in Delaware and four "Rising Stars®" attorneys. "Rising Stars®” is a recognition for lawyers who are 40 or under, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less. “Delaware Super Lawyers®” is a listing that reflects the top five percent of the attorneys statewide. More ›
Legal Tech New York 2015 took place in early February and the Morris James eDiscovery team was lucky enough to attend for the third straight year. The general impression is that the eDiscovery focus has continued to shift away from the view that predictive coding/TAR is a panacea that will greatly reduce the costs of eDiscovery. It appears that the conversation has moved towards a variety of other methods to improve efficiency and reduce client costs. More ›
This is the second in a series of posts summarizing the 7 most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2014.
The second case is 112359 Factor Fund, LLC and Five Nine Group, LLC v. Flux Carbon Starter Fund, LLC, Mary Carroll, Kevin Kreisler, and James L. Sonageri, C.A. No. 9568–VCL, Telephonic Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Rulings of the Court, 06/20/2014.
In response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, the Defendants claimed they did not have sufficient time or resources to review all 73,000 documents yielded by the search terms used. Vice Chancellor Laster was not swayed by these arguments. An Order had been entered earlier in the case requiring the parties to not only meet and confer regarding search terms, but to also "do more than the standard" and "confer regarding the use of an early data assessment tool…to focus on the custodians and time periods most likely to have responsive electronic documents”. Defendants’ reasons for missing the production deadline included delays in collecting the documents from their clients and insufficient manpower to properly review them. The Vice Chancellor found these explanations to be insufficient. The Court explained that in an expedited case, the parties need to think about approaches other than the “old school attorney-by-attorney review”. Had an early data assessment tool been appropriately used, as instructed, the number of search hits would not have come as a surprise and counsel could have thought ahead and planned appropriately to meet the discovery deadlines. The Court ordered that a copy of the transcript be given to Defendants clients, to help them understand that not complying with a discovery order will have serious consequences. More ›