In Warren v. Amchem Products, Inc., Justice Peter Moulton sanctioned defendant J-M Manufacturing Company for destroying documents in 1990 and 1997 – 24 years and 17 years, respectively, before the Warren Estate filed suit against asbestos manufacturers in 2014.
The short answer is – maybe; if there is any possibility that the information contained on the phone may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party in the lawsuit.
The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidelines since all IoT “medical devices that use software and are connected to hospital and health care organizations’ networks have vulnerabilities—some we can proactively protect against, while others require vigilant monitoring and timely remediation.”
New “Privacy Shield” Agreement Seeks to Resurrect a Safe Harbor for EU-U.S. Data Transfers – Can It Succeed?
On February 2, 2016, the EU Commission and U.S. Department of Justice announced the framework of a deal to allow transatlantic data transfers between the EU and U.S. without running afoul of Europe’s strict data protection directives.
There was only one change to the Discovery Codes but it was significant.
U.S.-EU Safe Harbor renegotiation misses deadline; FDA provides medical device design guidance; FTC settles false advertising claim with health care software vendor over encryption.
In nearly every facet of litigation, the issue of electronic discovery and how to manage its production and review is becoming an important issue.
Every one is dependent on WiFi -unfortunately most people think it is safe, however Networkworld identified 7 “ways you could be giving away your identity through a Wi-Fi connection and what to do instead.”
The Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court of Appeals’ Pegasus Aviation Decision and What They Mean for New York Litigators
For a long time, New York state and federal courts were out of sync with one another with regard to a litigant’s discovery obligations.
Unlike Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) – (2), California law does not impose a continuing duty on a party to supplement their interrogatory or document responses.