Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Important eDiscovery Sanctions Program at Fordham — Tuesday, February 24th

Download associated file: Fordham eDiscovery Sanctions Program.pdf 

Professor Daniel J. Capra, the Reed Professor of Law at Fordham and the Reporter to the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence, has organized a stellar program on Electronic Discovery Sanctions on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 6 p.m. The panel will include two prominent members of the Southern District bench, U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska and U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, and two well-known judges from outside the District, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte of San Francisco and U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola of the District of Columbia. All four of the judges have authored important opinions in the field, and Judge Scheindlin and Professor Capra have just co-authored a treatise, Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence.

The brochure for the program is linked above.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

Archives