ABA Section of Litigation and Center for Professional Responsibility - Webinar: Ethics and E-Discovery: "Reasonable Inquiry" in the Wake of Qualcomm v. Broadcom
Event | 09.30.08, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC
The circumstances underlying Judge Major’s decision in Qualcomm v. Broadcom, sanctioning Qualcomm and its counsel for failing to adequately search for or produce certain electronically stored information (ESI), highlight the various ethical conflicts that can arise in the course of litigation and e-discovery. Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every disclosure or discovery response “be signed by at least one attorney of record…after a reasonable inquiry.” Judge Major considered sanctions against all “attorneys who signed discovery responses, signed pleadings and pretrial motions, and/or appeared at trial,” including junior associates.
In this teleconference and live audio webcast, Chief Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm (D. Md.) will join a panel of litigators with extensive e-discovery experience to discuss ethical and practical considerations arising from the “reasonable inquiry” requirement of Rule 26(g) in the context of e-discovery. The discussion will address the sometimes delicate and difficult balance between complying with counsel’s ethical obligations and managing client concerns in an area where discovery often is voluminous, complicated, and costly.
David Cross will be the moderator of this event.
For more information, please visit these areas: E-Discovery and Information Management
Insights
Event | 02.20.25
Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today
Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today: In 1997, the California Supreme Court decided Buss v. Superior Court. In Buss, the court concluded that a liability insurer that defended a mixed action could seek reimbursement from the insured for the defense costs associated with the claims that were not even potentially covered. Since then, numerous courts have held that insurers are entitled to recoup their defense costs associated with uncovered claims or causes of action. On the other hand, a significant number of courts have rejected insurers’ right to recoupment, at least in the absence of a policy provision granting the insurer that right. Some commentators have even suggested that the current judicial trend might be away from permitting insurers to recoup their defense costs. Is that correct? Has the Buss stopped? This panel of coverage experts will analyze insurers’ claimed right to recoupment today, and offer their perspectives on what the law on recoupment should perhaps be and might be in the future.
Event | 02.18.25 - 02.20.25
Event | 12.05.24
Event | 12.05.24
