Guidelines & Metrics for Efficient & Dynamic Inside-Outside Counsel Partnerships
14
www.llminc.com Guidelines & Metrics for Efficient and Dynamic Inside-Outside Counsel Partnerships Virtual Corporate Counsel April 19 th , 2012
-
Upload
liquid-litigation-mangement-inc -
Category
Entertainment & Humor
-
view
329 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Guidelines & Metrics for Efficient & Dynamic Inside-Outside Counsel Partnerships
www.llminc.com
Guidelines & Metrics for Efficient and Dynamic Inside-Outside
Counsel Partnerships
Virtual Corporate CounselApril 19th, 2012
www.llminc.com
The Faculty
Dawson Horn IIISenior Litigation CounselTyco International
Eric S. Knustrom, Esq.Account ExecutiveLiquid Litigation Management, Inc.
www.llminc.com
The Complexities of e-Discovery
“With the rapid and sweeping advent of electronic discovery, the litigation landscape has been radically altered in terms of scope, mechanism, cost, and perplexity. This landscape may be littered with more casualties than successes . . . .”
-- PSEG Power N.Y., Inc. v. Alberici Constructors, Inc.
www.llminc.com
Consequences of Poor Litigation Management
– Derailed trial strategy – Team tension leading to sub-par performance– Missed deadlines– Sanctions
• Philips Electronics Corp. v. BC Technical, 2011• Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(b)
– Skyrocketing costs• Zarwasch-Weiss v. SKF Economos USA, Inc., 2011
– Injury to reputation• Green v. Blitz 2011
www.llminc.com
P.I.M.A.
www.llminc.com
Why P.I.M.A.?
– Integrate inside and outside counsel more effectively.
– Reduce the cost of e-Discovery and litigation.
– Streamline workflows to reduce errors.
– Prevent past mistakes from becoming future headaches.
– To support the merits of the case and ultimately WIN.
www.llminc.com
Plan: Before the Complaint
– Know your IT team
– Explain expectations (e.g. litigation hold)
– Understand your IT infrastructure
www.llminc.com
Plan: After the Complaint
– Understand the dispute– Know your timetable – the Rules
• Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and 16(b)• SDNY Pilot Project Rules for Complex Litigation
– Who do I need to involve?• Who owns the facts?
• Magana v Hyundai Motor Am., 2009• Whose business am I about to disrupt?• Litigation Hold
– “Preliminary” Early Case Assessment: How big/serious/far reaching is this?
– Budget development
www.llminc.com
Plan: After the Complaint
– Assemble a winning team• Outside Counsel• Vendors• Others
– Establish workflows and processes• Gentex v. Sutter 2009 • J-M v. McDermott
www.llminc.com
Implement
– Maintain a “big-picture” overview
– Coordinate, monitor and coach
– Reporting systems that are deadline driven
– Let your team do its work • But remember, ignorance is not bliss• Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation• Gener v. TR Investors
www.llminc.com
Measure
– Make expectations clear
– Share measurements
– Develop proactive measurement tools• J-M v. McDermott
– Keep measurements flexible • In Re: Nat’l Assoc. of Music Merchants
www.llminc.com
Adjust
– Remember, most cases evolve over time– Allow for a dynamic infrastructure– Analyze: is an issue the result of:
• Team member• Plan that needs adjustments
– Anticipate staff rollover with robust documentation of workflow and expectations
– Retain past plans in case they gain relevancy– Constantly adjust throughout the lifecycle
• Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig.
www.llminc.com
Conclusion
– PIMA is dynamic and ongoing• Goal is continuous improvement• Future cases benefit from past cases
– PIMA is a disciplined tool and process, adhere to these principles and consider advanced technology as your friend
– PIMA is linked to the ebb and flow of a case
www.llminc.com
BibliographyCase LawGreen v. Blitz 2011 WL 806011 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011)Gentex v. Sutter 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106304 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2009)In re National Association of Music Merchants, Musical Instruments, and Equipment Antitrust Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145804 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)In re Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., No. 1:09-md-2089-TCB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13462 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2012)Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00068-PMP–VCF, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20625 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2012) Osborne v. C.H. Robinson Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123168 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2011). Zarwasch-Weiss v. SKF Economos USA, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113707 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2011). Philips Electronics N. Amer. Corp. v. BC Technical, No. 2:08-CV-639-CW-SA, 2011 WL 677462 (D. Utah Feb. 16, 2011)Genger v. TR Investors, LLC, 2011 WL 2802832 (Del. Supr. July 18, 2011)J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. McDermott Will & Emery (No. BC462832, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.) PSEG Power N.Y., Inc. v. Alberici Constructors, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66767 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007)Magana v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2009 WL 4070952 (Wash. Nov. 25, 2009) Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., "Qualcomm IV", 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33889 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010).
Statutes & RulesFed. R. Civ. Proc. 26 & 16(b)Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(b)
Accompanying material available at blog.LiquidLitigation.com
