by Maureen O'NeillJune 30, 2015
Legal commentators have been speculating about how the “Internet of Things” could generate a flood of new litigation. Some of that speculation recently became reality, when plaintiffs filed a class action against a group of automakers, alleging that they sold unsafe cars because their internet connectivity creates vulnerability to hackers.
by Maureen O'NeillJune 24, 2015
Ah, summertime . . . Colleagues and friends are heading to the beach, gathering up their summer reading collection. But right now I’m not focused on page-turning thrillers or rom-com novels. Instead, I’m thinking about data security and privacy. I’m exploring the factors that heighten the risk of a data breach, the staggering impact a breach can have on an organization, and how companies can minimize their risk of a breach.
by Maureen O'NeillMay 27, 2015
Not So Fast: The Sixth Circuit Rejects Race Tires, and Adopts a More Liberal Approach to Taxing E-Discovery Costs to the Losing Party
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that costs incurred by the prevailing party may be taxed against the losing party. In turn, 28 U.S.C. § 1920 itemizes the allowable expenses that may be taxed, permitting recovery of “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Over the years, federal courts have grappled with the question of how to interpret “the costs of making copies” in the digital age.
by Maureen O'NeillApril 30, 2015
Dear Mr. Speaker and Mr. President—The Supreme Court Submits to Congress the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
In several prior posts here on the DiscoverReady blog, we presented analysis and updates regarding the slate of proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Yesterday those amendments came one step closer to implementation, when the Supreme Court issued an order adopting them and transmitting them to Congress.
by Maureen O'NeillApril 18, 2015
Last month in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., Magistrate Judge Peck issued another order regarding the use of predictive coding (a.k.a technology assisted review, or TAR). Judge Peck’s titling of the order was “Da Silva Moore Revisited”, to signal the importance of the Rio Tinto case in eDiscovery practice.