Qualcomm v. Broadcom: Implications for electronic discovery

Proceedings of the 7th Australian Digital Forensics Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 91-98

  Luoma Jr , Milton H ^a   Luoma, Vicki M ^b  

^a METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Broadcom; E discovery; Electronic discovery; Federal Rules of civil procedure; Meet and confer; Qualcomm

Indexed keywords

BROADCOM; E-DISCOVERY; ELECTRONIC DISCOVERIES; FEDERAL RULES; MEET-AND-CONFER; QUALCOMM;

ELECTRONIC CRIME COUNTERMEASURES; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

FACINGS;

EID: 84867734914     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. ABA. (2008). Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims: 2004-2007. New York: ABA.
2. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald, No. 5(No 5) [2008] NSWSC 1169 (NSWSC November 4, 2008).
3. Autotech Techs Lt Partnership v AutomationDirect.com, 248F.R.D556 (N.D.ILL 2008).
4. Ball, C. (2009). BALL IN YOUR COURT: The Science of Search. Law and Technology.
5. Ball, C. (2008). Musing on Meet and Confer. Technology and the Law, 1-3.
6. Best Practices Commentary on the Use on Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery. (2007). Sedona Conference Journal, 191-217.
7. Covad Communications Co. v. Revonet, Inc., WL 5377698 (D.D.C December 24, 2008).
8. Digicel(St Lucia) Ltd v Cable & Wireless, EWHC 2522 (High Court of Justice Chancery Division November 7, 2008).
9. Dorrian, P. (2003). Jurists Offer Perspective, Tips on Electronic Discovery. Metropolitan Corporation Counsel.
10. Dreco Engery Services Ltd. v Wenzel, 2005 ABCA 185 (CanLII), 185 C.J.A. 0403-0234-AC. Frase (ABCA June 6, 2005).
11. E-Discovery., T. S. (2007). The Sedona Conference Journal, 189-217.
12. Equity Analytics, LLC v. Lundin, (WL 615528 (D.D.C. March 7, 2008).
13. Federal rules of civil procedure, 16(b) (2006).
14. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26(a)(1) (2006).
15. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 37 (2006).
16. Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, 34 (2006).
17. Garner, B. A. (2009). BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1368 (9th ed. St. Paul: West Law.
18. Hagenbuch v 3B6 Sistemi Elettronici Industriali S.R.L, Lexis 10838 (U.S.District Court N.D. II March 8, 2006).
19. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 500-501 (1947).
20. Qualcomm Inc. v Broadcom Corp, 539 F. supp 2d 1214 (S.D. Cal 2007).
21. Qualcomm Inc. v Broadcomm Corp, Order at 41 (S.D. California 2007 6, August).
22. Rowe Entertainment Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y 2002).
23. Scheindlin, S. (2009, May 17). Podcast. (K. Schieneman, Interviewer)
24. The Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use on Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery. (2007). The Sedona Conference Journal, 189-217.
25. Treppel v. Biovail Corp., WL 278170 (S.D.N.Y February 6, 2006).
26. United States v O'Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d at 22 (D.D.C February 18, 2008).
27. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 FRD 251 (D.Md 2008).
28. Wachtel v Health Net, Inc, 239 F.R.D. 81 (DNJ 2006).
29. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, WL 1620866 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2004).