Showing 29 posts in Best Practices.

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: Cumming v. Edens, C.A. No. 13007-VCS (Del. Ch. July 12, 2018) (Slights, V.C.) (TRANSCRIPT)

Posted In Best Practices, Cases, Collection, Cooperation, Cost Shifting

In this transcript ruling deciding the plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents, the Court of Chancery provided some noteworthy guidance regarding discovery from third party financial advisors.  In response to the plaintiff’s subpoena, the financial advisor here had initially asserted boilerplate general objections and offered to meet and confer with respect to each request, without expressly agreeing to produce any documents.  Months later, the financial advisor had still only produced its deal file and limited other documents and had failed to agree to any proposal for the collection, review, and production of its responsive email data. 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 ›

Looking Back on 2015: The 6 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 3

Posted In Best Practices, Cases, Cooperation, Project Management

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

Pfizer, Inc. v. Amgen Fremont Inc., C.A. No. 10667-VCL, Hearing on Cross Motions to Compel and Rulings of the Court, July 6, 2015. More ›

Looking Back on 2015: The 6 Most Important eDiscovery Cases in Delaware - Part 2

Posted In Best Practices, Cases, Confidentiality Order, Document Review

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

Flax v. Pet360, Inc., C.A. No. 10123-VCL, Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Sanctions and Rulings of the Court, June 29, 2015. More ›

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

Posted In Best Practices, Cases, Sanctions

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

Posted In Access to ESI, Best Practices, Cases, Collection, Duty to Preserve

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 ›

A Summary of the Upcoming FRCP Amendments

Earlier this year, proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were submitted to the United States Supreme Court for review following a years long process that began in 2010.  The proposed amendments will become effective on December 1, 2015 barring any action by either the Supreme Court or Congress to modify them.

Circuit splits and a lack of uniform standards have plagued eDiscovery for some time. The proposed amendments attempt to bring uniformity to the body of eDiscovery law that has been developing since the early 2000s.  The proposed amendments also seek to address litigants’ concerns that eDiscovery has in the past been used as a weapon to force settlement upon those who cannot afford to engage in the process.  To that end the proposed amendments address proportionality and the scope of discovery.  

These amendments will most likely eventually be adopted by various States as well.  For a full discussion by the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a list of all of the Committee’s proposed amendments, see the March 2014 and September 2014 Reports of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, available here [http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/committee-reports]. 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 ›

eDiscovery: What Are Judges Thinking?

This summer one current and one former United States District Court Judge took to the interview circuit on the topic of eDiscovery.  The most common theme was that lawyers have the obligation to understand both the law and technology. More ›