eDiscovery Case Law Podcast: How Failing to Meet and Confer Effectively Can Lead to Sanctions
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 286: Listen and Learn -- Conclusory Pleadings Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Civ Pro)
Direct Examination: To Lead or Not to Lead
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 416: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 224: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
The Only Rule of Multidistrict Litigation Is...
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Practicing Before the U.S. Supreme Court | Kannon Shanmugam | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Amended Rules Five Months Later: Early Trends in Case Law and What It Means
Proposed FRCP Changes: Effect on eDiscovery, RIM & IG (CLE)
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to decide the question, certified in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis, as to “[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed as improvidently granted the writ of certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Luke Davis, No. 22-55873, which raised whether a federal court may certify a...more
On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in four cases: Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, No. 24-808: This case concerns the applicability of the “reasonable time”...more
In EEOC v. Mia Aesthetics Clinic ATL, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-3407-MLB-AWH (N.D. Ga. May 30, 2025), the EEOC prevailed on several discovery disputes. It prevailed because its attorneys did their homework and supported their...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently reminded district courts that they may use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(7)—a little-known rule—to screen out meritless complaints before discovery....more
As this term draws to a close, the U.S. Supreme Court is getting busy in reducing its inventory of pending cases. Yesterday, six of them were resolved....more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued six decisions today: Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, No. 23-1039: This case addresses whether majority-group plaintiffs are held to a heighted evidentiary standard in...more
We’ve written previously about courts’ differing approaches to ascertainability — an implicit requirement under Rule 23 that class members must be identifiable. A pending petition for certiorari in Career Counseling, Inc. v....more
On April 29, 2025, United States District Judge John H. Chun of the Western District of Washington issued an order denying defendant Amazon’s request to claw back privileged documents it argued had inadvertently produced in...more
Allen v. United States, 2025 WL 35468, No. 24-99-KSM (E.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2025) - A federal court dismissed a negligence claim against the United States Postal Service (USPS) after the plaintiff failed to timely oppose the...more
In Wenzler v. U.S. Coast Guard, 2025 WL 1445805 (Mar. 20, 2025), Wenzler alleged that he had been disenrolled from the voluntary U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary based on his speech on social media. Wenzler unsuccessfully asserted...more
Every week, the Array team reviews the latest news and analysis about the evolving field of eDiscovery to bring you the topics and trends you need to know. This week’s post covers the period of May 11-17. Here’s what’s...more
Let’s just get it out there: if you think Electronic Discovery (eDiscovery) and Electronic Disclosure (eDisclosure) are just regional spellings for the same digital mess, I’ve got a bridge in London I’d love to sell you....more
You are handing a case involving millions of pages of documentation, emails, etc., including documentation with sensitive trade secrets and intellectual property. You are under the gun to submit a brief in opposition to a...more
Whether you're the appellant or the appellee, knowing when an argument is properly preserved goes a long way. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit publishes very few opinions, so finding a roadmap for...more
In Liberty Corporate Capital Limited v. Gallagher Re, Inc., Case No. 8:25-MC-10-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla. April 24, 2025), Liberty sought to enforce a subpoena issued by the arbitration panel in a reinsurance dispute to Gallagher,...more
This LawFlash details strategic takeaways and practical lessons from the recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on IPR estoppel, evidence of public use, and jury instructions on specific issues....more
Aggressive litigation adversaries sometimes try to make a discovery sideshow into the main event. A party’s search for responsive documents occasionally triggers such an effort....more
On April 4, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom (E.D.N.Y.) declined to sanction a pro se plaintiff for failing to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation of whether his patent was infringed. Plaintiff initially filed a...more
In North End Chamber of Commerce (“NECC”) v. City of Boston, the NECC and several restaurants in the North End neighborhood of Boston (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the City of Boston (“City”), alleging that the City...more
In Lacey v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2025 WL 1363069 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2025), plaintiff submitted a filing with erroneous AI-generated citations. The Special Master pointed out some of them. The plaintiff resubmitted a...more
We the Protestors, Inc. v. Sinyangwe, 348 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2024), makes several important points about the relationship between ESI Protocols and redaction of produced documents....more
The US Supreme Court held oral arguments in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a Labcorp v. Davis, et al. to consider the issue of whether a federal court can certify a class when some of the members of the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Labcorp v. Davis (No. 24-304), a case that arrived at the Court to resolve a fundamental question: "[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule...more
The plaintiff AirDoctor sued the defendant under the Lanham Act for advertising and selling filters for use in AirDoctor purifiers. While the defendant advertised its filters as “compatible” and “replacements” for the...more