Make up an “emergency” and launch the costly and stressful exercise of seeking emergency relief that is dead on arrival. (This is not all that uncommon, unfortunately.)
If you are not already reading DuetsBlog and you are interested in the best IP/trademark blog in Minnesota (and beyond) by far, you are missing out.
Check out this Lulu of a post (and post of a few Lulu’s)…
(To be fair to the lawyers who embark on these Quixotic and futile exercises, sometimes clients come into lawyers’ offices breathless and sputtering with intensity and more or less order lawyers to undertake such actions. Practice pointer: Just say no.)
The extraordinary cost and burden of discovery of ESI in U.S. litigation has been widely recognized and decried for the past 15 years or more. This is changing.
And about a year ago, I did a post on how trial lawyers’ “idiots’ bargain” created an equilibrium, a balance, or a moratorium of sorts, in which lawyers on both sides of the table maneuver or negotiate around electronic discovery obligations so both sides could avoid the potentially huge expense to their clients and also exposing lawyers’ and law firms’ technological incompetence or sloppiness. But the days of truce are numbered if not over. Electronic discovery costs are coming down and lawyers’ knowledge of e-discovery tools (and using them more carefully) goes up.
But note the lengthy and insightful comment of Chris Chalstrom, CEO and President of Shepherd Data, below. With cost savings and cut corners like strictly defined key word searches, you may be “penny-wise and pound foolish.”
Update (August 28, 2014): I guess we’ll see what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has to say…
Original post (July 31, 2014): Apparently not. United States Court Judge Susan R. Nelson (D. Minn.) has thrown out a putative class action against a lock manufacturer who, it is alleged, has made and sold a few lock models that are “stupidly simple” to pick.
The issue: no standing. That is, in the Court’s view, based on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the plaintiffs have suffered no injury (or “no present injury in fact for purposes of standing”). Really?
Derek Boogaard, Dead at the Age of 28
Update (August 28, 2014): The Rohloff complaint, discussed below, bears a resemblance to the LaCouture complaint from several months earlier filed by different law firms on behalf of different former NHL players. They are an interesting study in different styles. (Lots of pictures in the LaCouture complaint, for example.)
The point both lawsuits make is the same: the National Hockey League has made many hundreds of millions of dollars, feeding fans with the brutality of battered skulls of young and gifted athletes for about 100 years. Maybe it is time to stop. And/or maybe it is time to redistribute some of the blood money the league has raked in over the years.
These two cases, along with others, I assume, have been “MDL’d” in Minnesota and will be before U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Nelson (D. Minn.). (This is a process in which several (sometimes thousands) of lawsuits are consolidated in a single court for pretrial proceedings rather than forcing parties and lawyers to fight very similar fights in a disorderly array of courthouses across the country.)
(If the NHL has problems, what about boxing organizers etc etc etc?)
Earlier this week, I posted notes from a lunch that I had with retired U.S. District Court Judge James M. Rosenbaum. We had the following (admittedly truncated) exchange:
Do you think lawyers, then, can predict outcomes to their clients? I am frustrated because clients want certainty and the process is extremely uncertain…
I do not agree. Good lawyers advise their clients as to the strengths and weaknesses of their clients’ claims…
The very day of that post, the Minnesota Court of Appeals released an unpublished decision reversing a jury verdict for $1.2 million, punitive damages of $500,000, and reversing an award of attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff, Weiss Capital and Lee D. Weiss (who claimed an additional $427,000 in legal fees and $110,834 in costs). So instead of winning an award totaling somewhere North of $1.7 million, Mr. Weiss would appear to now be facing the liability of the defendants’ attorneys fees (which we can assume are close to $500,000 as plaintiffs’ own fees were).
Talk about mood swings…