A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision is noteworthy for the clarification it provides regarding several nuances of electronic discovery practice. See Ferguson v. Capital Development Insurance Company, LLC, C.A. No. 2018-0831-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 8, 2019).
Key Points: Among the helpful takeaways from this short letter ruling are the following:
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,
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
The Business Lawyer, an ABA publication, arrived in the mail today with two articles that should be of interest to those who follow Delaware corporate law. The foregoing link to the online version does not yet have the current issue, which the cover announces as Volume 66, Issue 4, but two articles, at pages
The Delaware Chancery Court recently issued four decisions in as many weeks on topics related to electronic discovery. These cases have been summarized already on this blog but I want to collect links to them all on one page for convenience. The cases with links to their summaries are as follows:
Grace Brothers Ltd. v. Siena
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.
The
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