![]() It’s from United States Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker out of the Southern District of New York.įor those of you who follow the Case of the Week, you know that Judge Parker has authored several decisions that we’ve handled here on Case of the Week, including the infamous Nichols v. This is a decision from February 27th of 2023. It’s a short one, that comes to us from the case of Kaiser Aluminum Warwick, LLC, v. You can also review the full text of the decision without having a subscription to log in. Each of the decisions in eDiscovery Assistant is a public link, meaning that you can link to those decisions in your writing. ![]() Each week, I pick a case from our eDiscovery Assistant database and talk about the practical implications of that decision for you, your clients, and your practice.īefore we dive in, if you haven’t yet had a chance to grab our 2022 Case Law Report, download a copy of that for your perusal. I am the CEO and founder at eDiscovery Assistant, as well as the principal at ESI Attorneys. ![]() eDiscovery Assistant is a SaaS based legal research platform and knowledge center for lawyers and legal professionals, and it is the only legal research database devoted exclusively to eDiscovery case law. Welcome to this week’s episode of our Case of the Week series brought to you by eDiscovery Assistant in partnership with ACEDS. In Episode 110, our CEO, Kelly Twigger discusses the increasingly relevant issue of whether relevancy redactions in responsive documents are permitted and how the existence of a protective order impacts that decision. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |