Practitioners should be thinking NOW about how what changes the new Rules will bring about; What will you do differently? How will this change your practice—if you typically represent plaintiffs, or individuals, or whether you typically represent defendants and large organizations?
This article discusses the most controversial FRCP proposed amendment; Rule 37(e) focuses on sanctions as opposed to behavior required for preservation.
This article describes the proposed amendment that is aimed at increased cooperation among litigants and their counsel.
Several proposed amendments seek to promote proportionality by directly amending the scope of discovery, promoting clearer responses to Rule 34, reducing the presumptive limits on the number of depositions and interrogatories, adding a limit to the number of requests for admission, and explicitly recognizing the authority to allocate expenses in discovery.
Many of the proposed FRCP amendments work towards shortening and making more active the early stages of litigation
Out of the 341 review comments made on the proposed FRCP amendments, 294 reviewers oppose the changes – Series on InsideCounsel.com Part 1 of 6
Technology Assisted Review (TAR), computer assisted review, predictive coding, clustering, categorization, themes, analytics, support vector-based TAR, concept-based TAR, email threading, near duplicate detection, sampling, machine learning – these are just a few of the terms that come up when talking about TAR. Here is a TAR cheat sheet to help keep the terms straight!
Is there a difference between “Predictive Coding” and “Technology Assisted Review”?
When does it make sense to use PC/TAR?
What are the risks in using PC/TAR?
Is it defensible?
Read the answers to these and over 10 more Frequently Asked Questions here.
As the law evolves to address new media distribution channels, courts will have to predict how people on both sides of the content will inevitably abuse the system.