Category Archives: Discovery
Distinctions in Federal and NYS Deposition Practice – Part One
The rules and law governing the review and execution of errata sheets and the scope of permissible corrections differs between Federal and New York State practice (and as between our own Departments). These distinctions will be discussed in a short series of blog articles. In this post, I am going to discuss the distinctions applicable to the review of a transcript by a witness. Are You Obligated To Allow The Witness To Review The Transcript? As a preliminary matter, under CPLR 3116 it is mandatory that the transcript be provided to the witness for review and correction. Should the witness […]
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 […]
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”.
