An Eckert Seamans associate prepared this overview.
The Chancery Daily recently reported on the Court’s order in OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC v. United Ohana, LLC, C.A. No. 12353-CB (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2017) (Order), requiring the parties to use predictive coding to assist the plaintiff in expeditiously producing responsive documents.
As is often
Auriga Capital Corp. v. Gatz Properties LLC, C.A. No. 4390-CS (Del. Ch., Jan. 27, 2012), read opinion here.
What this Case is Abo
ut and Why it is Important
This case establishes a high-water mark in terms of providing the most comprehensive explanation, based on legislative history and a review of Delaware cases,
The recent decision in the case of In re Aspartame Antitrust Litigation from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:06-cv-01732-LDD (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2011), read Order here, awarding more than $500,000 for the costs of e-discovery to the prevailing parties in an antitrust litigation matter, should be in
Here is an article from Law.com that provides an overview of key court rulings during 2008 in the extremely important area of e-discovery (a/k/a EDD).
In Postorivo v. AG Paintball Holdings, Inc., 2008 WL 3876199 (Del. Ch., Aug. 20, 2008), read opinion here, the Chancery Court disqualified from the case (i.e., colloquially, kicked off the case) certain lawyers of the defense team due to their litigation conduct which also raised issues about their compliance with the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Though
In Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. v. Huntsman Corp., 2008 WL 3522445 (Del. Ch., Aug. 12, 2008), the Chancery Court denied a motion to compel an inadvertently produced communication that was an attorney/client communication. Importantly, the parties had signed a stipulated Confidentiality Order that had a "standard non-waiver and clawback" provision that allowed one party to demand the