E-Discovery Team

We know that assembling documents for litigation and investigations is complex, frequently requiring searches of servers, backup files, hard drives, mobile devices, cloud computing sites and social media, with hundreds — if not thousands — of areas and formats in which relevant information can be stored. With an e-discovery team fully composed of members who maintain active litigation and/or enforcement practices, clients benefit from our unique insight gleaned from handling investigations and decades of litigating matters in federal and state courts and administrative forums across the United States.

A Proactive Approach to Data and Discovery Challenges

Committed to staying abreast of the latest e-discovery legal developments and technologies, our e-discovery team recognizes that proactive assessment at the outset of an engagement minimizes the risk of later surprises, particularly those involving data and discovery issues. Representing clients of all sizes and types, including Fortune 500 companies, multinational corporations, federal agencies, financial institutions, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, nonprofits, privately held businesses and individuals, we skillfully guide them through data challenges and risks and help them appropriately leverage their power.

Our Services

Our e-discovery team is not only proficient at document management and discovery. From helping clients establish or enhance information governance policies through assisting with pre-litigation planning to developing and employing discovery strategies, we advise on all aspects of data retention, use and security.

Information Governance

We provide proactive guidance regarding data management, including identifying potential data storage methodologies, approaches to data minimization and data remediation. We prepare information governance policies and procedures that are effective, succinct and easy to follow. We also monitor and work with artificial intelligence language models and can advise on issues related to this emerging area of technology.

Pre-Litigation Planning and Data Management

Sometimes the most crucial steps occur before a matter formally commences. We counsel clients on e-discovery readiness and related best practices, so they are prepared if and when litigation or an investigation occurs.

Discovery Management

Our e-discovery team provides guidance and support on all phases and facets of the discovery process, including litigation hold notices; negotiation of discovery protocols; data collection; review and production; and documentation and reporting in connection with disputes, complex civil litigation, internal investigations, government investigations and white collar criminal matters. We use the latest technologies and practices as applicable to access the information gathered quickly and accurately to maximize efficiency, productivity and convenience. Our lawyers are used to working with large data sets that compromise dozens, if not hundreds, of custodians and where the data at issue stretches over decades at the organization. We are also skilled at advising on methods for identifying, analyzing and redacting documents subject to a wide variety of privileges against disclosure.

Cybersecurity, Data Protection & Privacy

Our cybersecurity, data protection and privacy lawyers regularly represent commercial enterprises across numerous industries in a broad spectrum of cybersecurity matters, including regulatory compliance, data security policies and procedures, insurance and other contract counseling, data breach investigation and response, and data breach notification compliance and litigation. We also counsel clients on both foreign and domestic data privacy issues, including policies and procedures, regulatory compliance, enforcement and litigation. Our clients include technology companies, financial institutions, healthcare entities, investment managers, retailers and manufacturers, and e-commerce companies.

Education and Training

We offer clients on-site and online training on a variety of information governance and e-discovery topics, such as best practices for preserving, collecting and reviewing documents; managing email and mobile devices; and preventing and responding to data security breaches.

Representative Matters

Represented Glen Mills Schools, a private residential rehabilitative institution for youth adjudicated delinquent by jurisdictions across the United States, in a class action lawsuit seeking to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained while attending Glen Mills and compensatory educational damages for the allegedly deficient education they received. Secured the denial of class certification in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and denial of petition for leave to appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Represents one of the largest behavioral healthcare organizations in the United States as lead counsel in a putative nationwide class action alleging physical and sexual abuse/harassment and institutional misconduct.

Featured Publications

View All

Winning Your Discovery Disputes – How to Tailor Your Arguments to the New Rule 26(b)(1) Proportionality Test in the Third Circuit

“This case provides a classic example of how discovery gamesmanship can backfire…[a]fter the Pughs first requested hospital records in April 2020, the Northampton Defendants stonewalled, blanketly asserting that the straightforward interrogatories were somehow ‘vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome.’” – Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice, Pugh v. Community Health Sys., et al., No. 5:20-cv-00630 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2021). Litigators know that cases are rarely won at trial; they are won and lost on the discovery battlefield. In federal court, the traditional notion of relatively unconstrained discovery has given way to the explicit “proportionality” test of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), a rule that was most recently amended in 2015. While the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is “unquestionably broad,”1 federal district courts must balance a party’s right to relevant information against the possibility of wasteful and abusive discovery. The tension between knowledge and efficiency is addressed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), which provides that a party may obtain discovery on any matter that is both “relevant to any party’s claim or defense” and “proportional to the needs of the case.” As one court stated, “The district court’s role under Rule 26, then, is to discern that middle ground between two countervailing pressures, the optimal solution to the information-cost equations.”2 This article analyzes how district courts within the Third Circuit have treated the “proportionality” issue in the wake of the 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1). Renewed Emphasis on Proportionality Maintaining proportionality has taken on greater importance since Rule 26(b)(1) was amended in 2015. Significantly, the Advisory Committee added the proportionality clause to the first sentence, taking a provision that it had previously located – with almost identical language – in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The Advisory Committee stated that the amendment “restores the proportionality factors to their original place in defining the scope of discovery” and “reinforces” the parties’ obligation to consider proportionality factors.3 Although the Advisory Committee emphasized that the amendment did not change the duties of the parties and court, the change was widely viewed as an effort to restrain excessive and wasteful discovery and encourage judges to be more aggressive in policing discovery.4 Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his 2015 year-end report that the amended Rule 26(b)(1) “crystallizes the concept of reasonable limits on discovery through increased reliance on the common-sense concept of proportionality” and “states, as a fundamental principle that lawyers must size and shape their discovery requests to the requisites of a case.”5 Read the full article here. 1 United States v. Nobel Learning Communities, 329 F.R.D. 524, 527–28 (D.N.J. 2018). 2 Fassett v. Sears Holdings Corp., 319 F.R.D. 143, 153 (M.D. Pa. 2017). 3 Advisory Committee’s Note on the 2015 Amendment. 4 26 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 2. 5 Chief Justice John Roberts, “2015 Year–End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” Dec. 31, 2015 (Roberts Report), at 6-7, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2015year-endreport.pdf). Information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice or opinion or as a substitute for the advice of counsel. The articles by these authors may have first appeared in other publications. The content provided is for educational and informational purposes for the use of clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter. We recommend that readers seek specific advice from counsel about particular matters of interest.