January 13, 2010
Citation: Proctor & Gamle Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 2009 WL 440543 (E.D. Tex. Feb 19, 2009).
e-Lesson Learned: If you want to shift the cost burden of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) to an opposing party, you’d better back up your request with some legitimate facts.
Twitter This: Texas Court applies Zubulake cost-shifting factors, finds S.C. Johnson & Son’s argument specious --> http://ellblog.com/?p=1809
In this recent opinion, one Texas Court applied the Zubulake cost-shifting factors to a shampoo company’s unsupported argument that the opposing party should have to share the costs of performing OCR… and booted their argument to the curb.
At the pre-trial Case Management Conference, the Court ordered the parties to submit estimates of the costs involved in the production of documents in searchable Tagged Image File Format (“TIFF”) with Optical Character Recognition (“OCR”) before it made a ruling on the format of electronic discovery. Continue reading »
4 Comments |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Cost Sharing & Shifting, Procedure, Production of Data
View more articles implicating: In-House Counsel
January 4, 2010
Citation: Smith v. Slifer, 2009 WL 482603 (D. Co. Feb. 25, 2009)
e-Lesson Learned: Corporate executives: resist the temptation to shred or delete relevant evidence! Destroying relevant evidence once you’ve been sued only makes matters worse.
Twitter This: Corporate executives: resist the temptation to shred or delete relevant evidence! --> http://ellblog.com/?p=1804
Ever since the Enron destruction of documents debacle, one would think that corporate executives would realize that destroying evidence probably isn’t the greatest idea. Nonetheless, they seem to keep on shredding and pressing delete as if there were no tomorrow.
In Smith v. Slifer, one of the defendant entity’s executives, after being served with notice of the lawsuit, allegedly took it upon himself to download and use a program called Anti Tracks in order to wipe clean his home personal computer of allegedly damaging evididence. I emphasize the word “allegedly” because the Anti Tracks program was apparently pretty effective, rendering it impossible for plaintiff’s experts to garner any concrete evidence that relevant evidence was in fact destroyed (although they were easily able to establish that several documents were deleted). Continue reading »
10 Comments |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Legal Hold/Preservation, Spoliation
View more articles implicating: Owners/Executives