There's a brief decision by Magistrate Karla Spaulding from the Middle District of Florida that will probably be overlooked by most of my e-discovery colleagues in the blogosphere and certainly won't have any lasting importance in the body of electronic discovery jurisprudence. It does, however, underscore the importance of knowing what you are talking about when making presentations to the court (or opposing counsel) on e-discovery matters.
In Bray & Gillespie Management LLC, et al. v. Lexington Insurance (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3824 (Jan. 9, 2009), the core issues before the court involved sanctions for failure to comply with a court order. However, in a short footnote at the end of her opinion, the magistrate clearly expressed her frustration over the fact that the lawyers for one of the parties didn't understand the capabilities of their litigation support software and accordingly the party had to spend a lot of money unnecessarily to create a hard drive. Reading between the lines, it would appear the lawyers did not fully understand the capabilities of their Introspect database.
The message, once again, is don't mess with e-discovery if you don't know what you are doing and/or don't have competent assistance at your side.
No comments:
Post a Comment