Monthly Archives: August 2011

Prevailing Parties May Recover E-Discovery Costs Under the Federal Rules

The Clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled that there is a heavy presumption that prevailing parties may recover certain e-discovery costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)

Tagged with:
Posted in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, 54(d)(1), Ajinomoto, Articles, costs, exemplification

Cost Recovery Toolbox: Exceptional Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285

   In a recent post on this blog, fellow contributor Mike Zabel addressed how a prevailing party might recover the costs of e-discovery in litigating disputes in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, No.

Tagged with:
Posted in Articles, costs

I’m Responsible To Do What? Counsel’s Affirmative Duty To Ensure Compliance With Litigation Holds

A corporate defendant discovers that it will be subject to litigation, yet it actively destroys probative, relevant evidence. Many of us have read, or heard of, opinions where judges have punished a spoliating-defendant by issuing sanctions anywhere from an adverse

Tagged with:
Posted in Articles, duty, preservation, preserve, spoliation

Litigation Holds, Take 2

Once a litigation hold has been drafted, the next steps are to effectively issue, implement, and monitor the hold. These steps are equally critical to ensuring a litigation hold is successful.  6.      How is an effective litigation hold notice issued? ·                    

Posted in Articles

Litigation Holds, Take 1

        Developing, drafting and implementing a litigation hold are critical to the e-discovery process. A litigation hold ensures that all relevant information is preserved and later helps to ensure that discovery can be responded to efficiently, accurately, and appropriately. Accordingly, a successful litigation

Posted in Articles

When Does the Duty to Preserve Electronic Evidence Arise?

The duty to preserve electronic evidence is triggered once a party “reasonably anticipates” litigation. Silvestri v. GMC, 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001);  Pension Committee of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Securities, LLC, 685 F.

Tagged with:
Posted in Articles, duty, evidence, preserve
Subscribe To Our Posts


Cozen O’Connor Blogs