<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Blog Entries tagged 'Case Law Update'</title>
		<description>Blog Entries tagged 'Case Law Update'</description>
		<link>http://www.altep.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:59:51 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
		<item>
			<title>In Case You Missed It: Court Demands Parties Answer Questions About Spoliation</title>
			<link>http://www.altep.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,In-Case-You-Missed-It-Court-Demands-Parties-Answer-Questions-About-Spoliation.html/Itemid,97/</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.altep.com/images/tire%202.jpg&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; width=&quot;143&quot; height=&quot;84&quot; /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Northern District Court of California found a &amp;quot;troubling picture&amp;quot; when trying to understand how documents were possibly destroyed by a third-party defendant Taishan in &lt;u&gt;Dong Ah Tire &amp;amp; Rubber Co., Ltd. v. Glasforms, Inc.&lt;/u&gt;, a breach of contract case.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even after months of discovery, testimony of Taishan&amp;#39;s 30(b)(6) witnesses, and court ordered search and pr [...]</description>
			<author>james.crane@altep.com</author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>Spoliation</category>
 <category>In Case You Missed it</category>
 <category>FRCP</category>
 <category>EDiscovery</category>
 <category>Case Law Update</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>In Case You Missed It: Adverse Inference Instruction in CA Dist Ct</title>
			<link>http://www.altep.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,In-Case-You-Missed-It-Adverse-Inference-Instruction-in-CA-Dist-Ct.html/Itemid,97/</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;In &lt;u&gt;Keithley v. Home Store&amp;nbsp;.com, Inc.&lt;/u&gt;,&amp;nbsp;a patent infringement case in the Northern District Court of California, the magistrate judge recommended that the District Court give an adverse inference instruction to the jury due to defendants&amp;#39; discovery misconduct described as &amp;quot;among the most egregious&amp;quot; she&amp;#39;d ever seen.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;The bad discovery conduct included:&lt;/p&gt;False or misleading statements to the plaintiffsMaterial misstatements to the courtNo litigation [...]</description>
			<author>james.crane@altep.com</author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>In Case You Missed it</category>
 <category>Evidence</category>
 <category>EDiscovery</category>
 <category>Case Law Update</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>In Case You Missed It: LotusNotes and Accessibility</title>
			<link>http://www.altep.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,In-Case-You-Missed-It-LotusNotes-and-Accessibility.html/Itemid,97/</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;In Parkdale Am., L.L.C. v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am., Inc. (2007 WL 4165247), the Western District Court in North Carolina decided that relevant emails in LotusNotes format should be produced despite&amp;nbsp;Plaintiffs&amp;#39; objections that it would cost $20,000 to convert them&amp;nbsp;to a&amp;nbsp;searchable format.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;The Court found that because the emails were from a key custodian, and the amount at stake dwarfed the cost of the discovery burden,&amp;nbsp;Plaintiffs&amp;#39; objection bas [...]</description>
			<author>james.crane@altep.com</author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>Litigation</category>
 <category>In Case You Missed it</category>
 <category>FRCP</category>
 <category>Evidence</category>
 <category>Case Law Update</category>
 <category>Accessibility</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Poetic Justice in Action</title>
			<link>http://www.altep.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Poetic-Justice-in-Action.html/Itemid,97/</link>
			<description>&amp;nbsp; &lt;p&gt;As I&amp;#39;ve mentioned in previous posts, I always enjoy when a judge provides entertainment in his opinion, either in the way of comedy, emotion, or just plain wit.&amp;nbsp; In a recent case in the U.S. District Court of Washington, Judge Ronald Leighton granted a Motion for a More Definite Statement in a complaint alleging racketeering against GMAC Mortgage.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Judge Leighton was not impressed with the 465 page lawsuit and set out his conclusion in a limerick:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Plain [...]</description>
			<author>james.crane@altep.com</author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>Litigation</category>
 <category>General News</category>
 <category>Case Law Update</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>In Case You Missed It: Failure to Preserve and Produce E-mail Supports Adverse Inference Instruction</title>
			<link>http://www.altep.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,In-Case-You-Missed-It-Failure-to-Preserve-and-Produce-E-mail-Supports-Adverse-Inference-Instruction.html/Itemid,97/</link>
			<description>&lt;p class=&quot;style6&quot;&gt;In Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, the U.S. District Court in  the Northern District of Georgia held that an adverse inference instruction is  appropriate when an employer did not take the steps to properly preserve and  produce an email relating to an FMLA claim by a former employee. The key players  were the former employee, Connor, the defendant employer, Sun Trust, and the  supervisor of the former employee. At issue in the case was a relevant February  12th email written by the  [...]</description>
			<author>james.crane@altep.com</author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 02:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>In Case You Missed it</category>
 <category>Case Law Update</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>