Read the full story originally posted by Discovery Resources » Technology Counsel.
Home » Dueling Opinions: Scheindlin’s Pension Committee vs. Rosenthal’s Rimkus
Dueling Opinions: Scheindlin’s Pension Committee vs. Rosenthal’s Rimkus
posted by eDJ Syndicator at 7:07pm on Mar 18th, 2010
No Comments post a comment
(0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...- Related posts
- Dueling Opinions: Scheindlin’s Pension Committee vs. Rosenthal’s Rimkus
- Judge Shira Scheindlin (S.D.N.Y.) “Revisits Zubulake” in Pension Committee of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan, et al., v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al.
- Judge Scheindlin Correction: Pension Committee Opinion
- Raising the Bar – Judge Scheindlin Defines Gross Negligence in Spoliation
- Judge Scheindlin Revises Order In Pension Committee v. Banc of America Securities
The new decade has begun with conflicting and complementary opinions from Judge Rosenthal of Texas and Judge Scheindlin of New York. These opinions, penned by United States District Court judges, will frame the behavior and motion practice around federal e-discovery sanctions into the near future.
Before the ink was dry on Judge Scheindlin’s groundbreaking “no written legal hold = gross negligence” opinion in The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, et al., 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (Amended Order), subtitled “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later,” Judge Rosenthal, in Rimkus v. Cammarata, 07-cv-00405 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2010) drew careful lines continue…
More Stories
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.