Periodically we report on rule changes in the federal courts so that practitioners are away of these changes and how they might affect litigation practice in Delaware courts.  On December 8, 2011, the District of Delaware revised its Default Standard for Discovery Including Electronically Stored Information (the “Revised Default Standard”), which applies if

London v. Tyrrell, Del. Ch., No. 3321-CC (April 2, 2009), read letter decision here.

Kevin Brady, a highly respected Delaware litigator, has provided us with the following case review.

In a interesting twist on the issue of staying discovery so the Special Litigation Committee can complete its investigation, Chancellor Chandler, in a two-page letter

Kinexus  Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc. (Del. Ch., Sept. 22, 2008), read opinion here. In this Chancery Court decision, that decided cross motions to compel discovery, the  Court addressed important and practical issues involving electronic discovery and what the Court will accept as satisfactory responses to both interrogatories and requests for documents.


In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, 2008 WL 2310288 (D.Del. 2008), read opinion here. This is an opinion that should be read by anyone who wants to, or needs to, keep up to date on electronic discovery (EDD) pitfalls (read: all business litigators). The backdrop to this particular dispute in the litigation involved the inadvertent failure

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