Time to Stop Dreaming about Boilerplate Objections – Answer Judge Peck’s Latest “Wake-Up Call”

In his recent opinion in Fischer v. Forrest, 14 Civ. 1304 (PAE) (AJP), 2017 WL 773694 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017), Judge Peck declares that “It is time, once again, to issue a discovery wake-up call to the Bar in this District: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended effective December 1, 2015, and one change that affects the daily work of every litigator is Rule 34.” Can you name the three requirements the Judge lays out for responses and objections under amended Rule 34?

Data Privacy & Information Governance Get Intimate

Data privacy and information governance get intimate in a recently-settled claim against the Canadian company We-Vibe. The lawsuit alleged that they violated customers' privacy by tracking the very intimate details surrounding usage of "adult sensual lifestyle products," which illustrates again the complexity and ramifications of data collecting, aggregation, and analytics in today's world. And what's particularly interesting is something we've discussed before on this blog, data context.

TAR Caselaw Update: Out West and Down Under

Here on the DiscoverReady blog, we report periodically on significant developments in the case law regarding the use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) in legal discovery. This update, which recaps three cases decided in the last several months, takes us out to the Left Coast, and then to the land down under.

Magistrate Judge Peck Encourages Litigants – But Won’t Force Them – to Use TAR

In this employment discrimination case against the City of New York, the parties asked the court to resolve a number of discovery disputes, including a disagreement about the methodology that should be used to find responsive documents. The City preferred to use keyword searches, and the parties had engaged in some preliminary discussions about the appropriate keywords. Read about Judge Peck's order on technology assisted review.

“Predictive Coding Must Be the Way Forward” – So Says the UK High Court of Justice

Back in March we reported on Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd., the first order by a British court approving the use of the use of technology assisted review (TAR) for litigation disclosures. In that case, Master Matthews drew heavily from Magistrate Judge Peck’s landmark decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, and crafted a list of ten factors weighing in favor of the use of TAR. The court found no factors suggesting TAR should not be used. Now, another UK court has approved the use of TAR, but this time in a different posture.