Superior Document Services is in the process of launching an early assessment discovery team
Our contention is that the costs associated with electronic discovery can dramatically affect the decision of whether or not to move forward with litigation.; specifically with regard to cases with under( say for example ) $700,000 at stake. The question is how to stay within a reasonable budget to justify the litigation expense versus the ROI. Or maybe more specifically how does an attorney begin to understand the case specific electronic landscape and how their retention policies could affect his clients proposed action.
We feel that Law firms( and by proxy service bureau’s such as Superior) that can provide effective early case assessment at a reasonable cost to their clients with pending litigation will gain more credibility than those that continue to follow the methodology of “collect everything” until the budget runs out. Early case assessment includes the ability to identify the facts of the case through analysis of the custodians, concept and thread analysis of emails and data sampling of other electronic data to determine the best case strategy. This should be done in order to better prepare the client for potential expenses that will arise should litigation be propounded. What is the benefit in propounding litigation when the case is worth $1M and it requires spending $250K just to process data for review (not including attorney fees)? Wouldn’t everyone involved benefit from realizing this prior to moving forward?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Cunningham v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2668301 (D. Colo. July 1, 2008
Cunningham v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2668301 (D. Colo. July 1, 2008)
In this case arising out of a homeowner’s insurance claim, defendants sought a protective order to prevent plaintiff from inquiring into various topics during defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. One topic was to be: “Knowledge concerning the storage, preservation and backup of emails relating to claims authored or received by Susan Yeckley, Gilbert Friedmann and Alice Barron as well as any other adjusters who handled Plaintiff's claims.”
Defendants argued that the information sought in this topic was irrelevant to whether defendants breached plaintiff's insurance policy or acted in bad faith while adjusting his claim. Defendants further stated that, to their knowledge, "all emails between Plaintiff and [Defendants] have been disclosed.”
Plaintiff countered that he had requested all emails relating to his claim, but that the resulting number of documents he received was "small." Plaintiff stated that he "communicated with [Defendants] via email from the beginning of this claim,” and it appeared to the court that he was arguing that the small number of emails produced might indicate that the defendants had lost emails or information relating to his claim. However, the court noted that plaintiff could not reference, and had not referenced, any specific email that he believed was missing.
Thus, the court agreed that the "storage, preservation and backup of emails" was not relevant to whether defendants breached plaintiff's insurance policy or acted in bad faith in adjusting his claim. Concluding that plaintiff had not met his burden of establishing the relevancy of this information or that the request was not redundant, the court granted defendants' motion for a protective order as to this topic.
Another topic at issue was described as: “Knowledge of efforts undertaken by Defendants, and each of them, to produce documents requested by Plaintiffs in Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. When responding to this matter, exclude all attorney-client information.” Notwithstanding the qualifier, defendants argued that that the topic invaded the attorney-client privilege.
The court observed that the Tenth Circuit has disapproved the use of a blanket assertion of privilege, holding: “A general refusal to cooperate [in discovery] is not enough. [A lawyer asserting a privilege] must normally raise the privilege as to each record sought and each question asked so that ... the court can rule with specificity.”
Since no questions had yet been asked at any deposition, the court denied the motion as to this topic to the extent it sought a “blanket” protective order based on the attorney client privilege.
In this case arising out of a homeowner’s insurance claim, defendants sought a protective order to prevent plaintiff from inquiring into various topics during defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. One topic was to be: “Knowledge concerning the storage, preservation and backup of emails relating to claims authored or received by Susan Yeckley, Gilbert Friedmann and Alice Barron as well as any other adjusters who handled Plaintiff's claims.”
Defendants argued that the information sought in this topic was irrelevant to whether defendants breached plaintiff's insurance policy or acted in bad faith while adjusting his claim. Defendants further stated that, to their knowledge, "all emails between Plaintiff and [Defendants] have been disclosed.”
Plaintiff countered that he had requested all emails relating to his claim, but that the resulting number of documents he received was "small." Plaintiff stated that he "communicated with [Defendants] via email from the beginning of this claim,” and it appeared to the court that he was arguing that the small number of emails produced might indicate that the defendants had lost emails or information relating to his claim. However, the court noted that plaintiff could not reference, and had not referenced, any specific email that he believed was missing.
Thus, the court agreed that the "storage, preservation and backup of emails" was not relevant to whether defendants breached plaintiff's insurance policy or acted in bad faith in adjusting his claim. Concluding that plaintiff had not met his burden of establishing the relevancy of this information or that the request was not redundant, the court granted defendants' motion for a protective order as to this topic.
Another topic at issue was described as: “Knowledge of efforts undertaken by Defendants, and each of them, to produce documents requested by Plaintiffs in Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. When responding to this matter, exclude all attorney-client information.” Notwithstanding the qualifier, defendants argued that that the topic invaded the attorney-client privilege.
The court observed that the Tenth Circuit has disapproved the use of a blanket assertion of privilege, holding: “A general refusal to cooperate [in discovery] is not enough. [A lawyer asserting a privilege] must normally raise the privilege as to each record sought and each question asked so that ... the court can rule with specificity.”
Since no questions had yet been asked at any deposition, the court denied the motion as to this topic to the extent it sought a “blanket” protective order based on the attorney client privilege.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
