Sep 21, 2009 0
Biller v. Toyota : Ethics, E-Discovery and Transparency
Time may never reveal the motivation for Biller v. Toyota. Or the 75 pages of Complaint the court has now refused to seal.
Unfortunately, Toyota’s press release does little to clarify the e-discovery issues, even as it seeks to ssway public opinion against the Plaintiff on personal grounds (always a little distasteful). Mr. Biller may be unstable, as they strongly imply, but that doesn’t mean he’s crazy,–or wrong about what he claims (he did??) on behalf of the company.
If he did those things, well, we’ve got several ethical issues to sort out…like his license to practice law. But, something strongly suggests that defense of this lawsuit is NOT seriously grounded in concerns about Mr Biller’s mental state.
What has been left out of other reports, but appears on the Justia site, is the fact that Mr. Biller owns 50% of an e-discovery firm that is also a named Plaintiff.
So, my gut tells me that this lawsuit is either a response to a business issue,–or publicity for someone (not sure who). Will there be or has there been a motion to force arbitration (Cf. Exhibit 2)? If so, then that will make this a very interesting ADR case as well!
Plaintiffs: Dimitrios P. Biller and Litigation Discovery & Trial Consulting, Inc.
Defendants: Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Christopher Reynolds, Jane Howard Martin, Eric Taira, Dian Ogilvie and Alicia McAndrewsCase Number: 2:2009cv05429
Filed: July 24, 2009Court: California Central District Court
Office: Western Division – Los Angeles Office [ Court Info ]
County: Los Angeles
I’m trying to find the Complaint, Answer and court Order’s but these may only be available on PACER. I’ll see if I can find that service to get around having to pay for information, which even the judge on the case said is “public.”
…
Got it! Thanks CBS: don’t know if y’all meant to hide it (maybe pending the judge’s ruling), but though the link is WRONG, the url errors were obvious! Next time, suggestion is to take it down. Any 12-year old could have found it last week.
Good url : “http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BILLERvTOYOTACOMPLAINT.pdf”
Bad url : “http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/htdocs/pdf/BILLERvTOYOTACOMPLAINT.pdf”
Given the nature of the Complaint, I won’t put it up here until I can get Defendant’s Answer, but if you want it, ping me.
Looks like this is really an IP case. Allen & Wohrle seem to have filed the complaint representing the Plaintiff.
Mr. Biller’s E-Discovery Seminar Agenda
Here is the agenda offered by LDT. It is reprinted as published on his website, because it’s a pretty good outline and I suspect it will not last long. I’ve pasted it here as published, so please refer to the hyperlinked site for current and accurate information. I’m only posting it here for your information.
»Why E-Discovery is Important to Corporations, Lawyers & Judicial System: 9:00 a.m to 10:00 a.m.
* Corporations
* Lawyers
* Judicial System
* Differences between Electronically Stored Information & Paper DocumentsLaw on E-Discovery
* Zubulake vs. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2003).
* Zubulake vs. Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2003).
* Zubulake IV
* Zubulake VAmendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
* Rule 16
* Rule 26
* Rule 33(d). Interrogatories to Parties & Options to Produce Business Record
* Rule 34. Production of Documents
* Rule 34. Production of Documents
* Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions.
* Rule 45. Subpoena
* Rule 26(c) – Motion for Protective OrderCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure: 10:15 a.m to 11:15 a.m
* Amendments to CCP Section 2016 and 2031
* Amendments to CCP Section 2016
* Amendments to CCP Section 2031
* Amendments to CCP Section 2031.050(a)-(c)
* Amendments to CCP Section 2031.060
* Amendments to CCP Section 2031.020
* Amendments to CCP Section 2031.080
* Section 2031.285 Has Been Added To the CCP & Discovery Act
* Amendments to CCP Section 2031.310
* Section 1985.6 Has Been Added To the CCP & Discovery Act
* CCP Section 2017.720
* California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2035.010 (Perpetuation of Testimony or Preservation of Evidence Before Filing Action)
* California’s Notice of Litigation Hold»Guidelines for State Trial Courts Regarding Discovery of ESI Document Retention Policy (“DRP”): 11:30 a.m to 12:30 p.m.
* Addressing E-Discovery
* Processes & procedures regarding issuance of NLH
* Discussing processes and procedures regarding lifting of NLHNotice for Litigation Hold
* When should a Notice for Litigation Hold be issues?
* What should a Notice for Litigation Hold State?
* Who should receive the Notice for Litigation Hold?
* How should the Notice for Litigation Hold be issued?
* Why is the Notice for Litigation Hold invaluable?
* Scope of Notice for Litigation Hold?# Searches, Collections, Analysis, Review & Production of E-Discovery
# Defending against Attacks for Alleged E-Discovery Abuses
# Recommendation
References