What we have here is a failure to cooperate! Our EDRM September monthly webinar of cases covered by the eDiscovery Today blog discusses key cases related to cooperation disputes. And, we’ve added a “Special” panelist to provide his thoughts on these interesting cases!
On Wednesday, September 2nd, EDRM will host the webcast Important eDiscovery Case Law Decisions for September 2020 at noon ET (11:00am CT, 9:00am PT – and 4pm UTC time, in case you’re wondering). In this webinar, you’ll learn about key cases related to cooperation disputes, including disputes related to in camera review, boilerplate objections, forensic analysis and search terms. Topics to be addressed include:
- Efficacy of Boilerplate Objections in 2020
- How Courts Should Address Search Term Disputes
- What Parties Should Do When Correcting Production Deficiencies
- When Courts Should Conduct In Camera Review to Resolve Privilege Disputes
- What Forensic Examiners Need to Discover for Potential Spoliation Sanctions
I will be participating, along with my good friends Tom O’Connor (Director of the Gulf Legal Technology Center) and Mary Mack (CEO and Chief Legal Technologist of EDRM). And, this time, we’ve added Craig Ball, President of the (aptly named) firm Craig D. Ball, P.C. 😉 Or, as Mary Mack likes to call him, “Special Master” Ball. Three’s Company, Four’s a Party! Click here to register!
So, what do you think? Are you interested in what courts have to say regarding cooperation disputes like these? If so, consider attending the webinar! And, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.