Attorney Required to be Physically Present During Collection of Electronic Information From Client

The importance of identifying and producing electronic information continues to underscore attorney obligations to be actively engaged in client document production.

As reported in the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, a Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor determined that the client's "unsatisfying" production demonstrated that its "self-collection" was insufficient, and ruled that the attorney should meet in person with the client to physically review the devices (including personal computers) where electronic information may be stored.

Popular posts from this blog

People, Processes, AND Technology: Use All Three to Avoid Missing a Filing Deadline

Image
As With Information Security, So Too With Calendaring . . .  "This is a cautionary tale for every attorney who litigates in an era of e-filing." The first sentence of the 5th Circuit's opinion in Rollins v. Home Depot  is quite the attention-grabber. But this tale is nothing new. Attorneys must understand the potential pitfalls of electronic service and take reasonable steps to avoid them.  As I have been saying (writing) for over ten years now, you cannot blame computers or computer software for missed deadlines. Instead, use knowledgeable people and sound processes to manage this risk. Blaming the Machines is not a Good Play Rollins (Briefly) . All attorneys using the case management/electronic case files (CM/ECF) system in federal courts agree to accept service of filings (and other documents and notices) via email.  FCRCP 5(b)(2)(E) . Counsel for Home Depot moved for summary judgment. Rollins' counsel didn't see the electronic notification of the motion becaus...
Read more

The Sound of Silence: SCOTUS FAA Arbitration Rulings Upend the Way SC Courts Construe Contracts

Image
Hello FAA, My Old Friend South Carolina courts have frequently been called upon to consider the ways in which the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to those contracts containing clauses purporting to require arbitration. The recent S.C Court of Appeals decision Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet is the latest example. The opinion and its result rests not on the application of South Carolina statutory or case law, but instead a line of United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) cases applying the FAA to disputes over agreements to arbitrate. For some background and discussion on some of these cases, click  here , here , or here . While it may not be entirely remarkable to apply SCOTUS opinions in state court cases, the manner of contract interpretation mandated by SCOTUS for arbitration agreements is completely different than the way South Carolina courts interpret “everyday” contracts. More specifically, these SCOTUS opinions explicitly prohibit the use of several contract interpretati...
Read more

Legalized, But Regulated: Commercial Hemp in South Carolina

Image
On December 20, 2018 the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018  (the "2018 Farm Bill") became law.  Following closely on the heels of the 2018 Farm Bill, on March 28, 2019 the South Carolina Hemp Farming Act  ("S.C. Hemp Farming Act") was signed into law.  The following is a brief overview of the status of hemp (also called "commercial hemp" or "industrial hemp") farming and regulation in South Carolina in the wake of the 2018 Farm Bill and the S.C. Hemp Farming Act. Background The terms "hemp" (which has non-drug connotations and uses) and "marijuana" (no further explanation necessary) describe the same plant genus: cannabis. The difference between the two is generally based on the relative amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the plant. Hemp plants are cultivated to produce fiber and seeds and very little if any THC. Marijuana plants, on the other hand, are cultivated to produce more THC. THC...
Read more