• June 29, 2011

Update (June 29, 2011):  Xcedex sought (and was granted) the relatively uncommon permission to file a reply brief in support of its motion to compel from U.S. Mag. Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes (D. Minn.) because, Xcedex counsel argued, defendant VMWare, in its response to the motion to compel, switched arguments from the laptop owner’s privacy interest to an objection about a supposed cost exceeding $700,000-$1.5 million cost for the forensic investigation (!).

Original Post (June 23, 2011):  When, if ever, will courts, litigants, and their lawyers get a grip on the proper scope of electronic discovery so that they have even a vague idea of the likely cost of electronic discovery in a given case or the amount of time needed for electronic discovery?

Until that day comes, we will continue to have “meta-disputes,” “fighting about fighting,” recriminations, and conflict when it comes to “electronic discovery.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *