follow us on twitter
White paper from Cobra Legal Solutions

White Papers and Industry Opinions from Cobra

  • White Papers.

  • The Section 1920 Blues: Courts "Literally" Limiting Recovery of eDiscovery Costs

    With another federal court and another district court interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) very literally and affirming Race Tires America, parties need to find a way to keep their technology costs low. Just last month in the Northern District of California, Judge Susan Illston reduced an eDiscovery award for "costs for exemplification and the costs of making copies" from $61,312 to $7,106.65 – a reduction of 88%. The December 2013 decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in CBT Flint Partners LLC v. Return Path Inc. et al overturned an eDiscovery costs award of $318,135 for the combined defendants. Following the Fourth Circuit's decision in April 2013 in The County Vintner v. Gallo, in which the court sliced an $111,047 eDiscovery bill to $218, clients should be nervous – particularly since both courts still affirmed the need for complete and thorough productions, including metadata. Race Tires was again cited this past January 2014 in Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. Int'l Securities Exchange, LLC, in which the Court denied recovery under §1920 for collection, culling, searching, hosting, or creating a document database.
  • Discovery Sanctions Related to Technology Can Fell David or Goliath

    In an era of increased confusion over preservation and production of electronically stored information (ESI), court sanctions are increasingly common. Both monetary sanctions and adverse inference instructions are frequently levied as parties grapple with predictive coding, social media, and "plain old-fashioned" emails and edocs. The decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last November in Steve Moore et al v Citgo Refining seems a positive step for both reducing the time and costs of eDiscovery battles (and reducing potentially frivolous claims) if both parties understand their obligations.
  • When Cleaning Up Facebook is Dirty Discovery

    In a recent spoliation sanction that created buzz all over the "blawgosphere," a Virginia attorney has agreed to a five-year suspension of his license for instructing his client to "clean up" his Facebook page. After he received a discovery request for his client's Facebook account, Matthew Murray advised his client, a widower plaintiff in a wrongful death suit, to delete photos and then to deactivate the account. According to The Hook, Murray wrote to the client: "Don't worry about sanctions.... If we get sanctioned, after the trial, you'll have plenty of money to pay it." These statements were also read at trial – surely a cringe-worthy moment. Several questions come to mind...
  • U.S. Patent Reform Legislation Offers New Opportunities

    On September 16, 2011, President Barack Obama signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The Act, which will be implemented gradually over the next 18 months, makes sweeping changes to the U.S. patent system....
  • Clarification of India Privacy Rules Bolsters Off Shore Outsourcing

    On August 24, 2011, India’s Ministry of Communications & Information Technology issued a clarification to the privacy and data security rules (the “Privacy Rules”) that had been published in April of this year. ... The recent clarification provides that Rules 5 and 6 do not apply to companies “providing services relating to collection, storage, dealing or handling of sensitive personal data or information under contractual obligation with any legal entity located within or outside India.” In other words, the Rules apply only to Indian companies that obtain sensitive personal data directly....
  • Opinion on UK Data Protection Legislation

    The law in the United Kingdom does not deter a U.K.-based law firm or corporation from transferring sensitive data outside the European Economic Area, provided the countries to which such sensitive data is sent implement and ensure an adequate level of protection for such data....