IPRO Tech Releases Case Database Application, IPRO Eclipse
PRO Tech, a leader in the design of scalable, easy to manage litigation support and e-Discovery software, today announced its new case database application, IPRO Eclipse, is live on client systems. This new product is the first IPRO application to encompass end-to-end discovery management functionality, eliminating the need to manage multiple technologies and ensuring data integrity throughout the discovery process.
IPRO Eclipse is a comprehensive approach to the litigation process with a highly scalable database and a case management application at its core. IPRO Eclipse is designed to allow users, from entry level to power user, to manage and review their case data from early document assessment to preparing for trial. From a single interface, users are able to work with case data in a variety of formats including native files from electronic discovery and all image sources. The powerful feature set includes Data Views for tables, HTML, images and native files and batch review management. Also included is IPRO’s powerful production management tool; Multi-language support; a robust Administration component that provides management for the case’s groups, roles or users and advanced search technology. The product’s latest addition, IPRO’s Eclipse Dashboard, is a real-time reporting application that was very popular at LegalTech New York. IPRO Eclipse recently completed a successful 2nd Beta program where reception was very positive for the new offering.
via IPRO Tech Releases Case Database Application, IPRO Eclipse.
Benlate Case Heats Up Over Document Accusations | Daily Business Review
DuPont surrendered more than 37,000 documents to comply with a court order requiring the maker of the shelved fungicide Benlate to produce documents in a lawsuit dating back to 1992, but attorneys for growers claim that 67,000 more are still needed.
Five Miami-Dade growers suing DuPont claim some of the newly disclosed documents reveal a long-running cover-up — relevant documents were misfiled or mislabeled in a discovery fraud.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Amy Steele Donner signed a show cause order March 17 demanding DuPont immediately produce all documents it had previously deemed unrelated to the Benlate case before her.
She said she would consider striking DuPont’s pleadings if the company failed to comply, which would set up a trial on damages only.
In the following weeks, DuPont’s attorneys handed over thousands of documents.
Miami attorney Robert J. Ratiner, who represents the five growers claiming crop losses from Benlate use, presented several of those documents in court Friday, showing some were directly related to the case.
“Judge, this was an orchestrated design of deceit from the beginning,” he said.
DuPont attorneys denied allegations of discovery fraud.
Donner told DuPont attorneys that they had more than enough time to produce records.
Company attorney Bert Ocariz of Shook Hardy & Bacon in Miami said the judge referred to only a certain class of documents, which were produced. But the judge said her order clearly intended for the production of everything.
“I don’t think you should have narrowly construed my order,” she said. “That would seem you are playing games with the court.”
Ocariz said that was not the case.
Donner did not make a ruling by deadline, saying late Friday that the hearing would continue on June 11.
via Law.com – Benlate Case Heats Up Over Document Accusations.
Discovery – Spoliation of Evidence Charged Against Hospital for Loss of Records | HIT Blawg
On April 16, 2010, in Howard Regional Health System d/b/a Howard Community Hospital, et al. v. Jacob Z. Gordon b/n/f Lisa Gordon , the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding Howard Community Hospital (“Howard Community”) liable for losing medical records and thereby making it impossible for a patient to pursue a medical malpractice case against an obstetrician. Jacob Gordon suffers from various medical complications that could have been caused by breaches in the standard of care when he was born. Following his birth and after having an attorney review the case, Jacob’s mother filed a medical malpractice claim against Howard Community, the Community Family Health Center, and the obstetrician who delivered Jacob. After she filed suit, Jacob’s mother requested certain medical records from Howard Community. Howard Community responded that it had lost some of the records from Jacob’s birth. A trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Jacob’s mother, finding that Howard Community had a duty to preserve the medical records, that it breached the duty, and that the breach made it impossible for Jacob’s mother to pursue the medical malpractice case against the obstetrician. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
This case concludes that a patient can have an independent third party “spoliation” claim against a health care provider for losing medical records. Significantly, the claim is outside the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and does not need to be reviewed by a medical review panel prior to being heard in state court. In this case, the Court found that a hospital is required by Indiana statute to maintain medical records and if the hospital violates that statute, it commits negligence per se, making an independent spoliation claim available to the patient.
The Court found that summary judgment was appropriate because Gordon’s mother had established that the record loss was the proximate cause of making it impossible for her to pursue the case against the obstetrician. Counsel for the hospital has indicated that a transfer petition to the Indiana Supreme Court will likely be filed.
via HIT Blawg: Discovery – Spoliation of Evidence Charged Against Hospital for Loss of Records.
The iPad set to solve ‘mega-litigation’ problem – The New Lawyer
- Image via CrunchBase
THE MacBook sat despondent while the latest zeit geist technology, the iPad, became one litigator’s primary resource in a recent four-day court case.
A litigation lawyer and blogger, who aptly calls himself Maclitigator, has completed what may be the first jury trial using the iPad as the primary means of getting information to the jury.
The lawyer said: “Apple has created a product which facilitates presentation of evidence without getting in the way and does so in a completely unassuming fashion.”
The iPad, which sits low and befits a place next to a legal pad or other notes at the podium, allows the trial material to appear to the jury as not “overly flashy”. Nor is it “a complete headache and a distraction to the attorney”, he said.
The lawyer used Keynote to upload all documents to be admitted. Blankslides provided a tabbed divider set up, separating photos of the scene, x-rays, medical records, tables and summaries into their respective categories.
As lawyers can use such technology in court, the question may be asked whether this will be the end of the “mega-litigation” described in cases such as the C7 judgement in Australia.
While the number of pages left to be read by judges and litigators, may not change, the format in which they are presented could be overhauled and condensed.
Justice Ronald Sackville described the C7 case, for example, as requiring a “Herculean effort” to go through the pages.
“The pleadings occupied 1,028 pages. The trial occupied 120 sitting days. The transcript of the trial is 9,530 pages in length. The statements of the witnesses’ evidence in chief totalled 3,654 pages, of which 2,041 pages were those of the expert witnesses. 12,849 documents totalling 115,586 pages were tendered by way of evidence. The applicants’ written closing submissions in chief totalled 1,556 pages. The respondents between them generated 2,594 pages of written closing submissions. The applicants’ submissions in reply totalled 812 pages,” it was said of the case.
The iPad solved this problem of multiple pages to a small extent. Photos were grouped as a single exhibit in the case, and all content to be admitted was contained in a single Keynote presentation.
In terms of the hardware setup, Maclitigator said it required a good high lumen projector, a long, high quality VGA cable, a VGA video adapter cable for the iPad, and a silicon case for the iPad just because it gets a bit slipper in nervous litigators’ “sweaty palms’ in trial.
Maclitigator saw victory in the case, as well as in using his iPad.
via The iPad set to solve ‘mega-litigation’ problem – The New Lawyer.
High Court Ruling May Fuel Battle Over Class Arbitration | National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court likely ignited an intense battle in state and federal courts with its decision Tuesday that class arbitration may not be imposed on parties who have not agreed to it.
“The sword of Damocles is hanging over class arbitration now,” said F. Paul Bland of Public Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm. “I think you are about to see a huge battle begin for what the implications of the case are. Consumer and employee advocates are going to take a view very, very different from what you’re going to see from the defense bar.”
Bland predicted that “within a week” defendants in more than 100 class action arbitration cases will seek supplemental briefing to argue that all state laws that have been used to strike down bans on class arbitrations are now pre-empted by the high court’s ruling in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
“We have already received notice in one of our cases that the defendant wants supplemental briefing to make that argument,” said Bland, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Public Justice and Public Good in the high court case, supporting AnimalFeeds.
Seth Waxman, a Washington partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, argued the case on behalf of Stolt-Nielsen and other shipping companies. Nina Pillard of Georgetown University Law Center represented AnimalFeeds before the justices.
Hugh Verrier, the White & Case chairman and counsel to Stolt-Nielsen, said the ruling’s impact will be felt in future antitrust arbitration cases as well as in other areas of the law.
“Class arbitration is one of the most hotly contested legal issues of the new decade,” said Verrier in a statement. “This decision is another cutting-edge legal victory by our antitrust group.”
A number of potential class arbitrations are now under way and could be affected by the decision, said Archis Parasharami, co-chairman of Mayer Brown‘s consumer litigation and class action practice. “In an amicus brief we filed with the Court, we pointed out that, in most of those cases, the defendant was referred to a potential class arbitration despite the fact that the arbitration agreement did not expressly authorize, or in some cases expressly precluded, class arbitration,” said Parasharami, whose firm’s amicus brief on behalf of CTIA-The Wireless Association supported Stolt-Nielsen. “Defendants in those cases now have a compelling argument that the class arbitrations to which they have been subjected are ultra vires.”
via Law.com – High Court Ruling May Fuel Battle Over Class Arbitration.
AstraZeneca to Settle Case for $520 Million – NYTimes.com
AstraZeneca has completed a deal to pay $520 million to settle federal investigations into marketing practices for its blockbuster schizophrenia drug, Seroquel. The Justice Department plans a news conference on Wednesday to disclose details of the case, according to two people close to the negotiations who were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
AstraZeneca becomes the fourth pharmaceutical giant in the last three years to admit to federal charges of illegal marketing of antipsychotic drugs, a lucrative category of medications that have quickly risen to the top of United States sales charts. Aggressive sales and promotional practices have helped expand the use of powerful new antipsychotic drugs for children and the elderly.
AstraZeneca will sign a corporate integrity agreement with the federal government over its marketing of Seroquel for unapproved uses, but will not face criminal charges, the people close to the negotiations said.
via AstraZeneca to Settle Case for $520 Million – NYTimes.com.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Drugmaker AstraZeneca to pay $520 million (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- AstraZeneca Reaches $520 Million Settlement (cbsnews.com)
- Drug Giant AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million (abcnews.go.com)
- AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million to Settle Drug Probe (Update1) (businessweek.com)
- AstraZeneca Settles Case for $520 Million (nytimes.com)
Supreme Court Justices Consider Courts’ Role in Arbitration | National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration trend appears intact after oral arguments Monday in a key case asking whether it should be courts or arbitrators themselves who rule on the enforceability of an arbitration agreement.
Consumer groups say the outcome of the case, Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson, could determine whether courts have any role in overseeing arbitration clauses in labor agreements, which they see as biased toward employers. Business groups, for their part, don’t want courts second-guessing what they see as validly agreed-upon arbitration agreements.
“If companies win, this really will be a watershed case,” said Deepak Gupta, an attorney for Public Citizen, which asserts that arbitrators rule against consumers 94 percent of the time.
During the past two decades, the high court has generally ruled to strengthen the enforceability of arbitration agreements. On Monday, few justices appeared eager to change that trend, though several seemed to believe that courts should play some role in checking especially egregious agreements. Dallas lawyer Robert Friedman of Littler Mendelson, representing the business side of the case, urged the Court to continue its practice of “sending very, very complicated matters to the arbitrator” rather than the courts
via Law.com – Supreme Court Justices Consider Courts’ Role in Arbitration.
SEC gathered range of experts for Goldman case | Washington Post
- Image via Wikipedia
Late into the night, they darted from office to office, carrying thick reams of documents, building the most prominent legal case to grow out of the financial crisis.
On the fifth floor of the headquarters of the Securities and Exchange Commission, five men and one woman, fueled by Sbarro pizza and Subway sandwiches, worked marathon hours over three months to finalize a case alleging that Goldman Sachs had defrauded clients.
Led by a former federal prosecutor and a pair of veteran SEC investigators, the team was preparing to take legal action against America’s most storied financial firm. On the line was the promise made by SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, appointed by President Obama last year, that the agency would restore its traditional role as an aggressive check on Wall Street abuses.
The team consists of three old hands and three more junior lawyers. Together, former colleagues say, they bring a mix of backgrounds suited for the many dimensions of the Goldman case. They can understand the details of very complex financial products, grasp the nuances of law and simplify complicated issues for a lay jury.
Lorin Reisner, 48, is a former federal prosecutor who was handpicked last year by the new enforcement director Robert Khuzami as his deputy. Under Reisner were agency veterans Ken Lench, 47, and Reid Muoio, 43, who lead a new agency group specializing in the types of exotic investments that nearly wrecked the financial system.
via SEC gathered range of experts for Goldman case.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Goldman fighting back after days of torment (telegraph.co.uk)
- Bank ‘Made Profit’ During Mortgage Crisis (news.sky.com)
- SEC Inspector Gen. to Investigate Goldman Filing (cbsnews.com)
- Fraud case upstages Goldman earnings (cnn.com)
- SEC Inspector General Asked to Examine Goldman Suit (Update1) (businessweek.com)
At The Hague, Uruguay Defeats Argentina’s Challenge to a Pulp Mill | National Law Journal
- Image via Wikipedia
The nation of Uruguay won a rare environmental case against Argentina at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands, on April 20.
The court delivered a two-part judgment in the case, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay). Through two separate votes, the court ruled that Uruguay breached procedural, but not substantive, obligations. On the procedural side, the court voted, 13-1, that Uruguay breached obligations to cooperate with Argentina and the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay while developing plans to build two pulp mills, known as Orion and CMB. Substantively, the court ruled, 11-3, that Uruguay did not breach its obligations to protect the environment under the Statute of the River Uruguay by allowing the construction of a the Orion pulp mill.
A Foley Hoag team led by Paul Reichler, a Washington-based partner, and consisting of six other lawyers at the Boston-based firm helped Uruguay fend of the lawsuit filed by neighboring Argentina.
Reichler said the decision is important because it’s the “first definitive decision by the court in a case involving international environmental law.” He said the only other environmental case was decided in 1997.
via At The Hague, Uruguay Defeats Argentina’s Challenge to a Pulp Mill.
Related articles by Zemanta
- World Court backs Uruguay in paper mill dispute (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Court Rules on Uruguay-Agentina Mill Dispute (online.wsj.com)
- Uruguay, Argentina agree to cooperate on river (sfgate.com)
Translation
by