How safe is information is hidden behind an individual’s privacy settings?
A recent employment discrimination lawsuit underscores the importance employers must place on preserving and producing electronic evidence.
We all know that it can be damaging to one’s case if a party to a litigation fails to preserve relevant information.
On July 13, 2016, Judge Buch of the US Tax Court denied an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) motion to compel the production of electronically stored information (ESI) by Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership and Beekman Vista, Inc., which was not delivered as part of a discovery response based on the mutually agreed-upon use of “predictive coding.”
Recently I received a telephone call from an attorney wanting to discuss whether opposing party’s objections to her special interrogatories had any merit.
In the well-known saga commonly referred to as “deflategate,” (NFL Mgmt. Council v. NFL Players Ass’n., 2016 WL 1619883 [2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2016]) the Second Circuit upheld the arbitrator’s decision to suspend Patriots’ quarterback, Tom Brady.
Webroot recommends that you “need to set up a regular backup regimen that at a minimum backs up data to an external drive, or backup service, that is completely disconnected when it is not performing the backup.”
BDO’s annual RiskFactor Report for the first time cites that manufacturers’ top 10 concerns about “operational infrastructure risk, including information systems and implementation of new systems and maintenance.”
Although e-discovery has been part of complex commercial litigation for over a decade, there have been only a few federal appellate court rulings about e-discovery topics.
Colorado is the latest state to revisit, and expand upon, its laws pertaining to the use and protection of student data. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper recently signed into law House Bill 16-1423 (the “Bill”) designed to increase the transparency and security of personal information about students enrolled in Colorado’s public education system (K-12).