<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Blog Entries tagged 'Evidence'</title>
		<description>Blog Entries tagged 'Evidence'</description>
		<link>http://www.altep.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:10:00 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
		<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>Five Reasons Companies Should NOT Conduct Their Own Forensic Investigations</title>
			<link>http://www.altep.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Five-Reasons-Companies-Should-NOT-Conduct-Their-Own-Forensic-Investigations.html/Itemid,97/</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Corporate counsel is always dealing with the&amp;nbsp;challenges of controlling costs and providing their corporate client with the most defensible position.&amp;nbsp; One question that always comes up is &amp;quot;why shouldn&amp;#39;t we just collect our own data?&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; It&amp;#39;s a good question.&amp;nbsp; Many corporations have an IT department staffed with talented and available personnel.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&amp;nbsp; &lt;p&gt;The short answer is that sometimes, in-house IT is the &amp;quot;logical&amp;quot; choice  [...]</description>
			<author>james.crane@altep.com</author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>Spoliation</category>
 <category>Outsourcing</category>
 <category>Litigation</category>
 <category>Evidence</category>
 <category>EDiscovery</category>
 <category>Corporate Counsel</category>
 <category>Best Practices</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>New Study Shows Outbound Emails Continue to Concern Corporations</title>
			<link>http://www.altep.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,New-Study-Shows-Outbound-Emails-Continue-to-Concern-Corporations.html/Itemid,97/</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;Proofpoint has released results from a March 2008 survey  of 301 US companies with more than 20,000 employees regarding email and data  loss. The highlights from the responses include:&lt;/p&gt;41% employ staff to read or analyze outbound email.  22% employ staff whose primary job is to read outbound email.  38% perform regular audits of outbound email.  44% investigated a suspected email leak of confidential  information in the past year.  23% stated their business was impacted by the exposure of  [...]</description>
			<author>james.crane@altep.com</author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 02:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>Litigation Readiness</category>
 <category>Evidence</category>
 <category>EDiscovery</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>