Coming soon: new federal e-discovery rulesBy Helen W. GunnarssonNovember 2006Lawpulse, Page 578Among other things, the amendments, effective December 1, allow routine purging of and address inadvertent disclosure of electronic data.
Strict compliance versus "substantial justice"By Helen W. GunnarssonOctober 2006Lawpulse, Page 518In deciding whether to give a party extra time to respond to a request to admit, can a court consider the other party's failure to comply with another rule? The first district says "yes."
Rule 222 -the high cost of noncomplianceBy Helen W. GunnarssonFebruary 2006Lawpulse, Page 62Plaintiffs who fail to heed the disclosure rule, which governs specified cases implicating $50,000 or less in damages, face the extinguishment of their claim.
Interrogatories: the numbers gameBy Helen W. GunnarssonDecember 2003Lawpulse, Page 594What if you're presented by an opponent with too many interrogatories, or what if you want to exceed the limits yourself? Here are some ideas.
Defending the DepositionBy Maureen B. CollinsJuly 2002Column, Page 379Your job is to protect deponents from the undue influence of an overzealous opposing counsel; and from their own confusion and intimidation.
Preparing to Take a DepositionBy Maureen B. CollinsMay 2002Column, Page 269The first of three articles addressing the skills you need to take and defend a deposition.
Rule 213 changes take effect July 1By Helen W. GunnarssonMay 2002Lawpulse, Page 226Litigators from both the plaintiffs' and defense bar like the amended rule's new three-class system for opinion witnesses: lay, independent expert, and controlled expert.
Write for Success in DiscoveryBy Maureen B. CollinsMarch 2002Column, Page 149Don't underestimate the importance of interrogatories and other forms of written discovery as a way to glean information that can strengthen your case.
A New, Improved Rule 213?By Helen W. GunnarssonFebruary 2002Lawpulse, Page 62Rule 213, introduced a few years ago to solve problems caused by old Rule 220, is causing problems of its own. The Supreme Court Rules Committee has proposed another fix for the rule governing admission of opinion testimony.