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.
by Maureen O'NeillMarch 28, 2015
How to Go Where Angels Fear to Tread: Best Practices for Developing and Negotiating Keyword Search Terms
In United States v. O’Keefe, former U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola tackled the subject of using keyword search terms to help identify relevant documents for production in discovery. Observing that the proper use of search terms in ediscovery involves “the sciences of computer technology, statistics and linguistics,” the Judge offered the now famous quip that, for lawyers and judges to opine on the effectiveness of a given set of search terms “is truly to go where angels fear to tread.”
by Maureen O'NeillMarch 17, 2015
Just in time for a St. Patrick’s Day eDiscovery blog post, earlier this month the High Court in Dublin issued an order approving the use of technology assisted review (TAR). In Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd. v. Sean Quinn, Justice Fullam found that “technology assisted review using predictive coding discharges a party’s discovery obligations” under the applicable Supreme Court rule, Rule O.31 r.12.