Author Archives: David A. Blansky, Esq.

Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Effective December 1, 2016

Recent bankruptcy rule amendments, effective December 1, 2016, address the continuing impact of the Stern v. Marshall case on bankruptcy proceedings.

In Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court (i.e. courts without full judicial independence) lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim, even though Congress purported to grant such statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)2(C).

Continue reading »

 

Individual Clients Using Employer E-Mail for Personal Communications May Waive Important Privileges Otherwise Protecting Those Communications

As a result of a recent decision from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, in the Matter of Peerenboom v Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 31957(U) (Sept. 30, 2016) counsel and their individual clients should reconsider their use of business e-mail accounts for the purpose of attorney-client or other protected communications.

Harold Peerenboom (“Peerenboom”) commenced an action in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, alleging that the CEO of Marvel Entertainment, LLC (“Marvel”), Isaac Perlmutter and his wife, Laura Perlmutter, defamed Peerenboom by sending anonymous defamatory letters to persons living or working at the Palm Beach condominium development where they all reside.

Continue reading »

 

Trial Smarts: Using an Evidence Log at Trial

Building or defending a case at trial is akin to putting together a puzzle.  The well prepared advocate need not “wing it” if pains are taken to organize evidence before the trial begins.

I started my legal career as an assistant district attorney.  As a young prosecutor, I observed that the courtroom deputy or clerk completed a log during trial in which he or she identified exhibits when marked them for identification and noted when the exhibits were admitted into evidence.  I obtained a copy of the “evidence log” and subsequently used one to keep track of evidence during trial.

Continue reading »

 

Amended Federal Rules Emphasize Proportionality and Cooperation

This is the second post concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), which became effective on December 1, 2015. This post focuses primarily on amendments to FRCP 1 and 26 governing the need for proportionality.

The prior post concerned revisions to FRCP 37(e) governing the preservation of electronically stored information (“ESI”), the remedies for spoliation of ESI where a party has failed to take “reasonable steps” to preserve, and remedies arising from “prejudice” as compared to spoliation of ESI arising from “intent to deprive”.

Continue reading »

 

Amended FRCP 37(e) Provides Rules Governing ESI Preservation and Sanctions

Amended Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), effective as of December 1, 2015, squarely addresses sanctions for the spoliation of electronically stored information (“ESI”) and overrules Second Circuit jurisprudence in the area. Some commentators have called FRCP 37(e) the most significant rule governing eDiscovery since the Zubulake line of cases.

Prior to the adoption of FRCP 37(e), there existed a split among the Circuits as to the grounds for sanctions arising from the spoliation of ESI. In 2002, in Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit permitted sanctions for negligent failure to preserve. That decision conflicted with less stringent standards in the Fourth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, which required a showing of “willfulness” or “bad faith” to support sanctions for spoliation. FRCP 37(e) rejected the Residential standard in favor of a bad faith standard for the imposition of more serious sanctions.

Continue reading »

 
  • LH&M is considered a debt relief agency.
    LH&M helps people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

    Attorney advertisement. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.