Remove Admissibility Remove Court Rules Remove Depositions
article thumbnail

Uber Technologies – Another Hyperlink Decision

E-Discovery LLC

The court ruled: If it has not already done so, Uber shall produce documents hyperlinked in Google chat messages, and related metadata to the extent feasible. The goal of document production, including production of ESI, is to develop admissible evidence for use at trial. Berman, Use of ESI in Depositions, Chap.

article thumbnail

June 2024 > Discipline & Other Notices

WA Bar News

THESE NOTICES OF THE IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS AND ACTIONS are published pursuant to Rule 3.5(c) c) of the Washington Supreme Court Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) , 8.4(c)

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Dec./Jan. 2025 > Discipline & Other Notices

WA Bar News

THESE NOTICES OF THE IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS AND ACTIONS are published pursuant to Rule 3.5(c) c) of the Washington Supreme Court Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. The Statement of Alleged Misconduct reflects the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.2 Diligence), 1.4

article thumbnail

Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson: Got a Hearsay Problem? Don't Give Up.

Evidence at Trial

The Court explained that “[b]ecause of this shared geological provenance, asbestos is often found intergrown as an ‘accessory mineral’ within a talc deposit.” With these gaps and ostensible evidentiary problems, the trial court granted J&J's motion for summary judgment, and the Strobels appealed.

article thumbnail

July/Aug. 2024 > Discipline & Other Notices

WA Bar News

THESE NOTICES OF THE IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS AND ACTIONS are published pursuant to Rule 3.5(c) c) of the Washington Supreme Court Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(b)