The California E-Discovery Act(“the Act”) establishing procedures for a party to obtain electronically stored information (ESI), similar to the Federal Rules of E-Discovery (December, 2006), was signed into law on June 29 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Act implements new rules for electronic discovery in California civil cases. The Act tracks the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [...]
|
|||||
|
By Robert Hudock, on July 7th, 2009
 Print This PostJuly 7th, 2009 | Tags: California, EDiscovery, ESI | Category: Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery Plan, E-Discovery, FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) "Not Reasonably Accessible", FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) or FRE 502, FRCP 37(e) Safe Harbor, FRCP Rule 26(f) - Reasonably Useable Format, Law and Technology, Local Court Rule, Form or Guideline |
Leave a comment
Print This PostBy Robert Hudock, on June 20th, 2009
Print This PostGoing to Court to force an ISP to disclose the identity raises many issues including First Amendment issues. For example, On June 13, 2007, the New Jersey Township of Manalapan filed a malpractice suit against its former attorney Stuart Moskovitz, alleging misconduct regarding the Township’s purchase of polluted land in 2005. The decision to file suit was met by a lively debate in the regional press and among localbloggers. One blogger who was particularly critical of the Township, of this and other decisions, was Blogspot blogger “datruthsquad” (http://www.eff.org/cases/manalapan-v-moskovitz). Long story short the Township lost, a copy of EFF’s motion squash is available here motiontoquashmpa-signed; and the Court order squashing the subpoena is available here order-122107. However, there may exist an alternative method for “unmasking” anonymous bloggers, cyber-stalkers, etc. using public information. Everyone has a unique writeprint (basically a written fingerprint that can be used to identify him or her). This technique s has traditionally been used to identify the true author of a text (e.g. a book) where authorship is disputed or unknown. Forensics linguistics has been used to provide evidence in trademark disputes cases, identifying the author of anonymous texts (such as threat or harassment letters), and identifying cases of plagiarism. The identification process relies on the analysis of an individual’s particular patterns of language use (vocabulary, collocations, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, etc.). The term “idiolect” is defined as the speech patterns of a specific person (a dialect, unique in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary to a single person). Stylistic features can be used to create a fingerprint of an individual’s writing style (a linguistic fingerprint is called a “writeprint”). A writeprint is composed of features that represent an author’s writing style, which are consistent across all of an individual’s writings. For a gentle introduction, see Digital fingerprints: tiny behavioral differences can reveal your identity, by Julie Rehmeyer in the January 13, 2007 issue of Science News (Westlaw cite 2007 WLNR [...] June 20th, 2009 | Tags: 1st Amendment, Bloggers, forensic linquistics, Writeprint | Category: Forensic Linguistics, Forensic Tools, Law and Technology, Open Source, Privacy, Privacy Law, Statistical Methods Use Thereof |
One comment
Print This PostBy Robert Hudock, on March 10th, 2009
Print This PostInformation not originally thought to be relevant may become a vital resource in laying the groundwork for your case. However some materials absent specific notice may be purged pursuant to a written document retention policy thereby providing opposing counsel and his/her client safe harbor protection under Rule 37(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On the other hand if you can provide notice as to potentially relevant information, and opposing counsel fails to preserve this information opposing counsel and his/her client will potentially be subject to serious sanctions.1 The universe of responsive documents can be further expanded using interrogatories designed to ascertain relevant electronic information systems that may contain information relevant to your litigation. (This process will also facilitate understanding of opposing counsel’s technological infrastructure, information that will be useful in the event opposing counsel claims data are [...] March 10th, 2009 | Tags: Discrimination, Due Diligence, E-Discovery, Excessive Lunch Breaks, NDCA, Rule 37(f), Safe Harbor, Usenet | Category: Discovery Plan, E-Discovery, FRCP 37(e) Safe Harbor, Key Cases, Notice |
Comments are closed
Print This PostImprove the web with Nofollow Reciprocity. |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Law Blog 2.0 - Robert Hudock, Esq., CISSP - All Rights Reserved - This Blog is a personal blog of Robert Hudock. |
|||||