Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In many kinds of litigation, document production is a dirty term. Even when done carefully, responsibly, and well by both sides, the process of producing documents (and, for the other side, the process of dealing with documents that have been produced) is tedious, thankless, and consumes a remarkable amount of resources. Things become much worse when the parties clash over what should be produced and how, and worse still when the party receiving the documents is more interested in using the discovery process to inflict pain or to generate a record for sanctions motion practice than he is in getting documents to help him prepare his case.
As a party producing documents, you can't change the way the other side will behave, but you can still set up your document production to make it much more likely that things will go well. Anticipate your document production needs when a case is filed, not when you first receive written discovery requests. If the litigation is on a brand-new subject for which no documents have previously been gathered, get started on the process. If it is serial or otherwise familiar litigation, consider what unique discovery might be required by this case, and look into it.
Take the initiative by offering the document production on your terms. Consider making an offer of documents up front, before the other side even serves its requests. The new Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B) requires the production of documents, or a description of documents, that a party may use to support its claims and defenses. (Some local rules expand this to require production of documents that either side might use to support its claims and defenses.) This is a good opportunity to make an initial proffer of documents, but you may also choose to do so in a letter to the opposing counsel. You should at the same time flag any issues that you see as potentially troublesome. This may be a set of documents that will take you some time to produce, or a group of electronic documents that would cost more to recover than the likely value of the entire case. (In the latter circumstance you may want to inform the other side that it would be unreasonably burdensome to produce those documents, but that you will do so if they will bear the cost.)
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?