In the previous blog, Start Preparing Your Motion Because with These Responses You’re Going to Court, I used the following example as a type of response I see as a Discovery Referee:
Responding party hereby incorporates its general objections as if fully stated herein. Responding party objects to this request to the extent it seeks
Have you noticed that you are getting too many objections and very little documents to your document requests? Have you also noticed that despite months of meet and confers you still don’t have a determination whether or not documents exist; and if they do exist, why they aren’t being produced? Is this scenario more the
Alexandra A. Hamilton, a trial attorney at The Veen Firm, who handles complex cases involving catastrophic injuries or death, including products liability, workplace injuries, dangerous conditions of property, and vehicle negligence has written a great article for Plaintiff Magazine regarding how to combat the games attorneys play regarding the supplemental expert disclosure. Enjoy.
Another great article from Julie Lewis, President, CEO and Founder of Digital Mountain regarding obtaining information from a party’s iPad’s, smart phones and other mobile devices.
Social Media Metadata on Mobile Devices: Gathering Valuable Crumbs
If you’re a fan of television crime dramas, chances are you’re intrigued by how the smallest bits of evidence are often the very ones that end up closing the case on the identity of the criminal. Be it carpet fiber, a human hair, or the DNA from a single drop of blood, these infinitesimally tiny pieces of evidence can reveal vast amounts of information when handled by the right investigators. The same can be true of the small bits of information hiding underneath the content of social media postings made from mobile devices. In the hands of the right forensic examiner, the metadata behind the content can tell a lot about the briefest post. In this article, we’ll look at the connection between social media apps for mobile devices and metadata collection.
Continue Reading
Julie Lewis, President, CEO and Founder of Digital Mountain, has over 20 years of experience working in the high technology industry and is a frequent speaker on electronic discovery, computer forensics and cybersecurity. After working on over 1,000 computer forensics and e-discovery cases for over a decade, Julie has provided us with some simple tips for successful eDiscovery planning:
About a year ago I received an inquiry from a lawyer stating:
I’m researching whether the defendant can file a motion for a protective order after my motion to compel was already granted—I’m’ trying to find a case that precludes the protective order motion as a matter of law—res judicata perhaps?
This is a procedural issue and one that you need to be familiar with all the ins and outs of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as current case law because my answer is “It depends”
A plaintiff counsel writes in asking for advice:
“Today is July 7th. Trial is July 31. Discovery cut-off was July 1 and expert discovery closes on July 16th. Well, my client sought additional treatment on June 25thwith a neck, back and spine specialist. The results of the visit were provided to me on June 26th and I immediately mailed the results to opposing counsel that day. Now opposing counsel is stating the discovery is after the cutoff and inadmissible and the doctor can’t testify because expert disclosure has passed. I’m really worried about whether I will be able to use the evidence and if so, how I will be able to use the evidence?”
Opposing counsel is blowing smoke at this young lawyer.
In this blog I have asked that lawyers write in if there was a topic they would like me to address. I have received many requests over the years and the next couple of blogs will be responding to some of these requests. Here is the first one.
“I noticed a few things regarding privilege logs. 1) litigators are not sending them. 2) my opposing counsel tends to argue that there is no obligation to prepare a privilege log unless it is demanded by the requesting party and I don’t think that’s right – I think it’s an affirmative duty arising when someone withholds documents under an objection – is that right?”
Effective January 1, 2013 and subject to certain exceptions, the duration of a witness deposition was limited to seven hours of total testimony. (CCP §2025.290(a).) The limitation brought the California statute consistent with existing federal law, which has a similar seven-hour rule. (See FRCP Rule 30(d)(1))