Last week I interviewed West author Jay Grenig. His recently published eDiscovery treatise covers many facets of eDiscovery practice.
As a Reference Attorney my first question was what strategies he uses to research this issue.
Professor Grenig, provided several examples of searches he finds useful, but focused on using secondary sources to begin your research. Specifically, how browsing the Tables of Contents of relevant treatises will provide an overview of the issue, useful search terms, and provide references to the leading cases. Here is an example from the Table of Contents for his treatise, eDiscovery & Digital Evidence (EDISCOVERY)
eDiscovery from Multiple Sources, Including Social Media:
I asked Professor Grenig about the scope of discovery requests when considering that relevant materials may be scattered across numerous servers, mobile devices, email accounts, instant messages and social media services like Facebook. He outlines techniques for effective discovery requests and provides guidance for potentially producing parties to manage information and develop policies which allow them to efficiently respond to eDiscovery requests.
Teaching eDiscovery in Law school and when Practitioners Need an Outside Consultant:
Finaly, Professor Grenig discusses the need to teach eDiscovery principles in Law school and to recognize the limits of lawyers technical savy to help determine when an outside consultant should be retained.
A restaurant owner in Door County Wisconsin is serious about protecting his “goats on the roof” trademark. Lars Johnson owner of Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant recently settled a suit against a Georgia grocer who allowed goats to graze on his shop as a means to draw business. See docket 2:09-CV-00192.
According to the registration Al Johnson’s began putting goats on the roof in 1973. The Goats on the Roof trade mark may not be as famous as the Nike Swoosh. But, having visited Door County, the goats on the roof certainly makes an impression. In my travels around Wisconsin, everyone I met refers to this restaurant simply as the place with the “goats on the roof.” As far as I can tell, only my wife refers to the place as “Al Johnson’s.”
One research note we discussed looking into this case: You may search using standard and Compu-Mark design codes in both domestic and international registration databases. (We used ALL-TM) Keep in mind, however, the codes are standardized. This means that Westlaw adds in leading zeros and eliminates the periods. This is common for IP services that include international materials.
So, the following design codes…
Compu-Mark Design Codes3.4.11 Goats, sheep, moufflons, chamois 6.7.6 Built-up areas composed of flat-roofed houses 7.1.10 Flat-roofed houses 7.3.11 Roofs
TM Design Codes03.07 Bovines, Deer, Antelopes, Goats, Sheep, Pigs 03.07.10 Goats, sheep, rams. 07.07.03 Roofs.
..are translated by Westlaw as…
Compu-Mark Design Codes030411 Goats, sheep, moufflons, chamois 060706 Built-up areas composed of flat-roofed houses 070110 Flat-roofed houses 070311 Roofs
TM Design Codes0307 Bovines, Deer, Antelopes, Goats, Sheep, Pigs 030710 Goats, sheep, rams. 070703 Roofs.
So, one of our queries in ALL-TM, looked like thisdcd(070703 & 0307!)
The Florida Third District Court of Appeals today affirmed a trial court, finding that F.S.A 63.042(3) violates the Equal Protection provision found in Article I, Section 2, of the Florida Constitution. The court upheld an adoption by a homosexual parent where both sides agreed that it would be in the best interest of the children and that the father is a fit parent.
The Court concluded that there was no rational basis for the statute banning homosexual adoption, and while recognizing that the legislature is allowed to make classifications when enacting statutes,
The classifications must, however, be “based on a real difference which is reasonably related to the subject and purpose of the regulation.” Id. (Emphasis added). “The reason for the equal protection clause was to assure that there would be no second class citizens.” Ostendorf v. Turner, 426 So.2d 539, 545-46 (Fla.1982).
The decision is available at 2010 WL 3655782
Monday, A Federal District Court judge in Virginia denied a motion to dismiss the complaint challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s requirement that individuals obtain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or pay a penalty.
After a thorough recitation of each sides arguments related to standing and the scope of Federal Authority under the Commerce Clause, the judge determined,
Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side’s position, this Court cannot conclude at this stage that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action.
The Court determined that for the purpose of preliminary injunction analysis the U.S. had demonstrated that section 2(B) is likely to be preempted by Federal law. The Court described the, likely preempted, section 2(B):
“Subsection 2(B) requires officers to make a reasonable attempt, when practicable, to determine an individual’s immigration status during any lawful stop, detention, or arrest where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. Id. § 11-1051(B). Subsection 2(B) also requires that all persons who are arrested have their immigration status verified prior to release….”
The order goes on to say that while Arizona’s interest may be consistent with the federal government, it is not in the public interest to enforce preempted laws.
There has been a flurry of Congressional news this week with the enactment of the Financial Reform Bill, and the Senate passing the extension of jobless benefits. When researching active or recently passed legislation it is important to understand which version you are interested in, either the engrossed, enrolled or introduced version, and how to access other versions.
In Westlaw, a find by citation for the Wall Street reform Bill 2009 CONG US HR 4173, will pull up all the versions as separate results. When you are in any of these bills you can click on the Graphical Bills link on the left side of the screen. To open up a map that not only shows all of the versions, but also links to legislative history organized by category.
A recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling held
“a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding…”
Now legislators are planning to introduce legislation that would require the use of a radar detector or other technology to verify a vehicle’s speed.
On Monday Bank of America which now owns Counrtywide, agreed to pay $108 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it overcharged homeowners. Federal agency releases on matters like this, even where there is not a specific ruling, regulation etc, can be found on Westlaw. For the F.T.C. these are in the n the Federal Trade Commission Documents (FEDTCOMDOC) database, there are similar databases for many other agencies.
I think the best way to find this, or any database, is to type a description of what you are looking for into the ‘Search for a Database’ box. But sometimes you just want a giant list of all the databases, you can drill down through the Directory on Westlaw, or we also have a PDF list of all the databases here, it can also be shipped to you for free.
When the ‘infomercial king’ Kevin Trudeau asked his radio listeners and online followers to email the judge on his behalf, it flooded the judge’s inbox. The judge found him in criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in prison.
The 7th Circuit ruled (2010 WL 1994593, docket # 10-1383) that this invasion into the ‘virtual courtroom’ was not sufficient to meet the in the ‘presence’ requirement for summary criminal contempt (Fed Crim. Pro. Rule 42(b)). While the court left open the possibility of the judge referring the matter to prosecutor, for now at least, Trudeau will not have to go directly to jail for spamming the judge.
At least he did not use Google Maps in the commission of a crime in Louisiana, where a bill recently passed by the legislature adds an extra year to a sentence “When an Internet, virtual, street-level map is used in the commission of a criminal offense.”
The Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida ruled that states may no longer sentence non-homicide juvenile offenders to life without parole. This case found a specific Florida law unconstitutional, but also calls into question a variety of laws from other states. According to Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, “Thirty-seven States as well as the District of Columbia permit sentences of life without parole for a juvenile non-homicide offender in some circumstances”. When a case like this comes down and potentially invalidates a variety of laws what is the best way to find all the state statutes that are now potentially unconstitutional?
Cases in both Westlaw and WestlawNext contain WestCodenotes. These are annotations added by our editors which indicate statutes which have been deemed unconstitutional or whose Constitutionality has been called into question. All of these statutes which have been called into question are linked from this CodeNotes sections. If you pull up any of these statues you will also see that it now has a yellow KeyCite flag, indicating that Graham has called its validity into question.