Never bashful about breaking new ground, Judge Shira Scheindlin issued a detailed October 25, 2013 opinion on discovery against the Bank of China in Wultz v. Bank of China. The issues arise in a personal injury case that targets   the Bank of China for allegedly aiding and abetting an international terrorist group.

The opinion

Courtesy of ILS, an e-discovery service, is a brief but useful article on a new opinion exploring "discovery about discovery."   The opinion is Ruiz-Bueno, III v. Scott, No. 2:12-cv-0809 (2013 WL 6055402(S.D.Ohio)). The opinion permits some discovery about how discovery responses were researched and created. 

It is the age of specialization. A prime example these days lies in e-discovery. The market is becoming even more specialized as some e-discovery firms seek out plaintiff’s lawyers, and collect and distribute plaintiff-friendly case law on sanctions for discovery violations. A recent example lies in one such firm (ILS ) writing about Judge Shira

Opinio Juris highlights an upcoming article on an important issue:

"When is an arbitral panel an international tribunal for purposes of Section 1782? Section 1782, of course, is the statute that authorizes federal courts to order discovery in aid of proceedings before foreign courts and international tribunals. As discussed in a forthcoming article in the

Here is an interesting paper from the Lehman bankruptcy. It is a motion for discovery against the UK’s Financial Services Authority and PwC. (Hat tip to Am Law Daily for publishing this article on the topic, with a link to the motion. ) The opening paragraph is pasted below:


“The Official Committee of

How much pre-filing inquiry is needed for a “mass tort” product laibility claim, and when must be it done ? A recent opinion in the Digitek MDL is related to those issues, but is limited to a narrow discovery issue. Digitek is a drug. The claims in essence are that a batch of the drug