Photo of Delaware eDiscovery Report Laura G. Readinger
Attorney
lreadinger@morrisjames.com
302.888.6872
View Bio
Laura G. Readinger is an associate in the Business Litigation group of Morris James.  Laura’s practice is focused on dealing with the challenges associated with electronic …

Showing 17 posts by Laura G. Readinger.

Case Spotlight: Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG

Case Spotlight: Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, C.A. No. 2018-0300-JTL (Del. Ch. May 22, 2018) (Laster, V.C.)

Plaintiff brought this suit to compel specific performance of a merger agreement with defendants.  Defendants refused to close on the deal after receiving anonymous letters containing data integrity allegations involving Akorn’s executive vice president who was in charge of its quality assurance department.  Initially, the parties entered into a common interest agreement and jointly conducted an internal investigation.  Over time, that arrangement fell apart and both parties conducted parallel investigations through their outside counsel with the assistance of consultants.  Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of materials concerning defendants’ data integrity issues. More ›

Case Spotlight: In re CBS Corporation Litigation

Case Spotlight: In re CBS Corp. Litig., 2018 WL 3414163 (Del. Ch. July 13, 2018) (Bouchard, C.)

CBS Corporation (“CBS”) has two classes of stock.  The Class A common stock has voting power; the Class B common stock does not.  Shari Redstone, through her control of National Amusements, Inc. (“NAI”), controls approximately 80% of the voting power of CBS and approximately 10% of the economic stake.

In September 2016, NAI’s counsel sent a letter requesting that CBS consider a potential combination with Viacom Inc. (“Viacom”).  The board of directors of CBS (the “Board”) adopted resolutions authorizing a special committee of independent directors (the “2016 Special Committee”) to consider the transaction and make a recommendation to the Board.  The 2016 Special Committee’s work ended in December 2016.  In January 2018, NAI again approached CBS asking for a combination with Viacom.  The Board adopted resolutions to form a second special committee (the “2018 Special Committee”) with essentially the same mandate and authority. More ›

Case Spotlight: TCV VI, L.P. v. TradingScreen Inc.

Case Spotlight: TCV VI, L.P. v. TradingScreen Inc., 2018 WL 1907212 (Del. Ch. Apr. 23, 2018) (Laster, V.C.)

Philippe Buhannic is a founder of TradingScreen Inc. (the “Company”) and was formerly its CEO and Chairman of the Board. His brother, Patrick Buhannic, was also formerly a director of the Company. In 2014, plaintiffs filed this action alleging that defendants had breached their fiduciary duties when determining how much of plaintiffs’ preferred stock to redeem. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (“Morris Nichols”) represented all defendants through trial, including Philippe and Patrick (together, the "Buhannics"); however, during settlement negotiations, it became clear that the Buhannics were adverse to the other defendants. In response, Morris Nichols withdrew as counsel to the Buhannics and advised the defendants that it could not participate further in the settlement negotiations. More ›

Case Spotlight: In Re ExamWorks Group, Inc. Stockholder Appraisal Litig.

Case Spotlight: In Re ExamWorks Group, Inc. Stockholder Appraisal Litig., 2018 WL 1008439 (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2018) (Laster, V.C.)

ExamWorks Group, Inc. (the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.  In 2010, the Company completed an initial public offering.  In 2016, it entered into a merger agreement with affiliates of Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.  After the announcement of the merger, petitioners perfected their appraisal rights seeking a judicial determination of the fair value of their interest in the Company.  During the proceedings, the Court of Chancery appointed two firms as Co-Lead Counsel.  The parties agreed on a schedule for the action, which included discovery, and the Court approved the schedule by order. More ›

Looking Back on 2015: The 6 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 4

This is the fourth in a series of posts summarizing the six most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2015.

Medicalgorithmics S.A. v. AMI Monitoring, Inc., C.A. No. 10948-CB, Oral Argument on Defendants’ Motion Regarding Plaintiff’s Improper Document Production, Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Defendants to Supplement Their Deficient Document Production, Discovery Issue Regarding Location of Depositions and Rulings of the Court, July 15, 2015.

This case dealt with cross-motions regarding deficient document productions in which the Plaintiff argued Defendants produced too few documents and Defendants argued Plaintiff produced too many. More ›

Spotlight on Exterro’s E-Discovery Case Law Library

Exterro’s E-Discovery Case Law Library is a worthwhile resource for all eDiscovery professionals and any attorneys interested in learning more about such issues as new data types, proportionality, and reasonableness.  It features a collection of simple and easy to understand analyses of the most significant eDiscovery case law throughout the country.  Our blog was recently highlighted in the library, where we provide our analysis on the GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc. case.

http://www.exterro.com/case-law-library/proportionality/gn-netcom-inc-v-plantronics-inc/

Delaware District Court Interprets Amended FRCP

The first Delaware opinion that has been issued that addresses either sanctions or proportionality under the new Federal Rules is GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.[1] Plaintiff GN Netcom, Inc. (“GN”) filed a motion for sanctions against defendant Plantronics, Inc. (“Plantronics”) after a long discovery dispute that centered around the “intentional and admitted deletion of emails” by one of Plantronics’s senior executives and his directives to other members of his team to delete emails. More ›

Looking Back on 2015: The 6 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 1

This is the first in a series of posts summarizing the 6 most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2015.

In re: ISN Software Corporation Appraisal Litigation, C.A. No. 8388–VCG, Oral Argument on Petitioners Motion to Compel and Partial Rulings of the Court, April 27, 2015. More ›

Looking Back on 2015: The 6 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware

2015 saw continued interest by the Delaware courts in various aspects of eDiscovery.  The courts dealt with broad issues, such as spoliation and general discovery misconduct, while also focusing on narrower issues, such as document review and redactions.

This blog will be summarizing these 6 cases in more depth throughout the rest of 2016.  The 6 cases that will be summarized are below: More ›

Looking Back on 2014: The 7 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 7

This is the seventh in a series of posts summarizing the 7 most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2014.

Mechel Bluestone v. James C. Justice Cos., C.A. No. 9218-VCL(Del. Ch. Dec. 12, 2014).

My colleague, previously summarized Mechel Bluestone in an article written on December 23, 2014 which discussed the need for senior Delaware counsel to guide and be closely involved in the preparation of privilege logs and to promptly respond to deficiency letters.  The article can be read in its entirety here: http://www.morrisjames.com/newsroom-articles-357.html.

To recap, here are the seven most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2014 (in chronological order) along with their key takeaways: More ›

Looking Back on 2014: The 7 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 6

This is the sixth in a series of posts summarizing the 7 most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2014.

Gloria James v. National Financial LLC, and Loan Till Payday LLC, C.A. No. 8931–VCL, December 5, 2014.

Ian McCauley previously summarized James v. National Financial in our blog post of December 29, 2014 which highlighted Delaware Counsel's discovery obligations as well as the sanctions that may be imposed for not complying with those obligations.  The original post can be read in its entirety here: http://www.morrisjames.com/blogs-Delaware-eDiscovery-Report,court-of-chancery-clarifies-delaware-counsels-role-in-discovery.

The three key points made by Vice Chancellor Laster in his opinion were: More ›

Looking Back on 2014: The 7 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 5

This is the fifth in a series of posts summarizing the 7 most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2014.

Kan-Di-Ki, LLC (d/b/a Diagnostic Laboratories) v. Robert Suer, C.A. No. 7937–VCP, Oral Argument on Various Outstanding Motions, Pre-Trial Conference and Rulings of the Court on Motion for Summary Judgment, September 24, 2014.

While various motions were addressed at this hearing before Vice Chancellor Parsons, the most relevant to eDiscovery was the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for suppression or spoliation of evidence, including the deletion of relevant emails and the loss of unpreserved text messages which the Plaintiff argued pointed to a “pattern of suppression” on the part of the Defendant.  Plaintiff requested that the Court draw broad adverse inferences against the Defendant and afford his testimony no weight.  Additionally, the Plaintiff requested fees and costs associated with the motion. More ›

Looking Back on 2014: The 7 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 4

This is the fourth in a series of posts summarizing the 7 most important eDiscovery cases in Delaware in 2014.

In re ISN Software Corporation Appraisal Litigation, C.A. No. 8388–VCG, Oral Argument on Petitioners' Third and Fourth Motions to Compel and Partial Rulings by the Court, September 12, 2014. More ›

Looking Back on 2014: The 7 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 3

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 ›

Looking Back on 2014: The 7 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware – Part 2

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 ›