E-Discovery Vendor or Partner: It’s All in the Name
A quick glance at Dictionary.com reveals the following definitions for the word ‘vendor’ vs. the word ‘partner’:
vendor:
-noun
1. a person or agency that sells.
partner:
-noun
1. a person who shares or is associated with another in some action or endeavor; sharer; associate.
How do you and your organization view your relationship with your external e-discovery service provider(s), as those of a vendor, or those of a partner? Frequently razzed about my overt avoidance of the word ‘vendor’ when seeking e-discovery RFP project consultations and bids at the onset of a new litigation matter, the word ‘vendor’ still never fails to leave a sour taste in my mouth.
Ohio Sanitary Landfill Deemed a Public Utility for Zoning Purposes and Exempt from Zoning Restrictions
The law firm of Keating Muething & Klekamp represented Rumpke Sanitary Landfill in a three‑year long battle to have the largest sanitary landfill in Ohio declared a public utility under the Township zoning statute and, therefore, exempt from zoning restrictions. It is the first case decided in Ohio declaring a sanitary landfill a public utility.
A Personal Jurisdiction Decision Tailor-Made for a Civil Procedure Exam
Law school; first-year; civil procedure exam question: May a court assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who ships millions of packages into Ohio, and is paid millions of dollars in return by the resident plaintiff? Be careful, 1L’s (and practitioners).
Can a prior non-breaching fiduciary's knowledge trigger ERISA limitations: Missed it by that much - One undisputed fact away from summary judgment
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently denied the defendant's joint summary judgment motion in the case Fish, et al. v. Greatbanc Trust Co., et al., where the defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by ERISA's 3-year statute of limitations.
Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
On May 26th, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that, under the Stored Communications Act of 1986, postings to a user’s Facebook “wall” (and, similarly, to the “comments” page on MySpace – although nobody actually uses MySpace anymore) are considered private so long as the user has his privacy settings set such that only “friends” can see his wall postings.
"Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
For anyone with a few minutes, I would highly recommend reviewing Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., a recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In this case, which was originally a patent dispute, the court imposed a $8.5 million sanction against Qualcomm as a result of “massive” e-discovery failures, the fundamental root of which was “an incredible breakdown in communication.”
Strategic Defense in Criminal Antitrust Case Can Impact Civil Class Action Case Outcomes
A criminal antitrust case involving two bagged ice producers that pleaded guilty to conspiring "to supress and eliminate competition" was recently concludeded in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. While KMK was not involved in this case, it does bring to mind a few key considerations for companies and their attorneys to weigh when faced with bet-the-company criminal and civil litigation.
Class Actions Unconstitutional?
For a more theoretical and mildly controversial read regarding class actions, follow the argument and articles (like the recent article in the February 8, 2010 issue of Forbes) of Northwestern University School of Law Professor Martin Redish, who is now suggesting that Rule 23 may be unconstitutional.
ERISA and Federal Rule 23... Point 1
In an ERISA case pending in the Northern District of Illinois involving breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow them to proceed in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan under ERISA section 502(a)(2) rather than require them to certify a class under Federal Rule 23. The District Court in Chicago denied that motion based on the defendants' opposition, and suggested that the case proceed, not as a class action under Federal Rule 23, but as a "derivative action" under Federal Rule 23.1.
Summary of ERISA "Excessive Fees" Litigation in 15 Minutes
ERISA class action litigation has become a niche practice. Originally, ERISA class actions were tag-along suits in securities cases. In recent years, plaintiffs have sought to certify ERISA class actions on a broad variety of breach of fiduciary duty claims. One such variety was the "excessive fees" claim — a claim that the plan sponsor and/or administrator breached its fiduciary duty to a class of plan participants by allowing unreasonable or excessive fees to be charged to the class on the investments offered through the Plan.
Topics
- Technology
- 2006 FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
- Land Use & Zoning
- Statute of Limitations
- Non-breaching fiduciary
- ERISA
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Privacy
- Social Media
- Taxation
- Real Estate Impact Fee
- Construction Litigation
- Sanctions
- Electronic Data Discovery
- E-Discovery
- Antitrust
- Federal Rule 23.1
- Federal Rule
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- Stock Drop
- Class Action Litigation
Contributors
Subscribe to RSS
Recent Posts
- E-Discovery Vendor or Partner: It’s All in the Name
- Ohio Sanitary Landfill Deemed a Public Utility for Zoning Purposes and Exempt from Zoning Restrictions
- A Personal Jurisdiction Decision Tailor-Made for a Civil Procedure Exam
- Can a prior non-breaching fiduciary's knowledge trigger ERISA limitations: Missed it by that much - One undisputed fact away from summary judgment
- Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
- Impact Fee or Illegal Tax?
- "Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
- Strategic Defense in Criminal Antitrust Case Can Impact Civil Class Action Case Outcomes
- Class Actions Unconstitutional?
- Justice Sotomayor Speaks!