Practice Areas & Industries: Greenberg Traurig, LLP

 




eDiscovery & eRetention Return to Practice Areas & Industries

Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Recent court decisions have imposed heavy sanctions on corporations that were unable to respond effectively to discovery requests. The proliferation of information technology has made it difficult for a company to know what information is within its control and how to manage that information to reduce litigation risk and comply with various laws. To address this complex and rapidly evolving need, Greenberg Traurig provides an interdisciplinary team comprised of Trial Lawyers, Corporate and Securities lawyers, Intellectual Property lawyers, Labor and Employment lawyers and in-house technology professionals that can develop custom-tailored programs and provide on-going counseling. With locations in the United States, Europe and Asia, Greenberg Traurig is well positioned to assist companies from prevention to defense.

  • Assessment of data and information systems
     
  • Development and regular updating of document retention policies and procedures
     
  • Regular audits of retention procedures
     
  • Litigation hold procedures
     
  • Industry specific requirements such as HIPAA, OSHA and SEC regulations

 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Applying Aspen Skiing, Tenth Circuit Finds Microsoft Not Liable For Terminating Dealings with a Competitor
Ryan F. Harsch,Irving Scher, November 21, 2013
In Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s post-trial judgment that Microsoft was not liable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Section 2) for monopolization of the market for PC operating systems. In doing so, the court reaffirmed that in order to...

FINRA's New 'New' Discovery Guide:  E-Discovery, Affirmations and Product Cases
Michael E. Pastore,Scott E. Rahn, November 21, 2013
On Sept. 16, 2013, the SEC approved amendments to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) Dispute Resolution Discovery Guide (Discovery Guide), which will become effective on Dec. 2, 2013 for all customer cases filed on or after the effective date. FINRA petitioned the Securities...

Heartburn for Drug Manufacturers: 'Reverse Payment' That Did Not Include a Monetary Payment Held Actionable Under the Antitrust Laws
John J. Elliott,Irving Scher, November 21, 2013
On July 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a decade of conflicting circuit court decisions in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., ruling that "reverse-payment" settlements of Hatch-Waxman Act patent infringement lawsuits "can sometimes violate the antitrust laws," and...

CFPB Trial Disclosure Program Now Effective
Robert E. Bostrom,Peter L. Cockrell,Brett M. Kitt,Gil Rudolph,J. Scott Sheehan, November 15, 2013
On October 29th, the CFPB’s Notice of Policy regarding its Trial Disclosure Program was published in the Federal Register, thus making the Policy effective. Section 1032(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act permits consumer financial service providers to “conduct a trial program that is limited in...

Fifth Circuit Holds That Stern Eliminates Bankruptcy Court's Power to Decide Non-Core Actions by Consent
Mark D. Bloom,G. Ray Warner, November 15, 2013
In a decision that demonstrates the potentially broad impact of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision in Bellingham, the Fifth Circuit held that bankruptcy judges may not “determine” non-core matters even where the parties consent. BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C. (In re BP...

Ninth Circuit Holds that a Properly Structured Voluntary Rental Program Offering Does Not Convert Hotel Condominium Units into Securities
Richard F. Davis, September 30, 2013
In a case involving the offering of 450 condominium hotel units and a rental program at the Hard Rock Hotel in San Diego, California, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals found in favor of the sponsor and upheld the real estate purchase and sale agreements as just that, a real estate contract...

Does My Email Communication Constitute a Binding Agreement?
Israel Rubin,Rachel Sims, August 27, 2013
In an era where the prevalence of email exchanges in the business arena is almost commonplace, clients and attorneys should be aware that a form of identification which could constitute their signature in an email, attesting to the substance of a negotiated settlement, may be considered a binding...

Discovery Verifications May Lead to Corporate Punitive Damages
Mark D. Kemple,Adrienne J. Lawrence,Adam Siegler, August 24, 2013
Litigators defending corporations against punitive damages claims based on employee misconduct should be cautious when permitting employees to execute discovery verifications as an “officer,” “director” or “managing agent,” because they may be held to have...

It May Be Steel, but Its Supply is Elastic: Eleventh Circuit Rejects Market Definition That Fails to Account for Ease of Entry
Scott Martin, August 22, 2013
In a decision undergirded by fundamental principles of economics, burden of proof and common sense, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the entry of summary judgment dismissing attempted monopolization claims against a producer of untreated hot rolled steel in Gulf States Reorganization Group, Inc. v....

Ninth Circuit Decision Addresses Standards for Claim That Buyer Knowingly Received Unlawfully Discriminatory Prices in Violation of Robinson-Patman Act
Irving Scher, August 22, 2013
On July 19th, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a per curiam decision in Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Allied Exhaust Systems, Inc., a rare Robinson-Patman Act (R-P) court of appeals decision addressing a claim that a purchaser knowingly received unlawfully discriminatory prices...

Supreme Court Rules That Reverse-Payment Patent Litigation Settlements are Subject to Judicial Review Under the Antitrust Rule of Reason
John J. Elliott, August 22, 2013
On June 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a decade of conflicting circuit court opinions when it held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., that “reverse-payment” settlements of Hatch-Waxman Act patent lawsuits “can sometimes violate the antitrust laws,” and for...

No Broker-Customer Relationship Absent a Direct Connection to Investment-Related Services Provided by the Brokerage Firm
Jennifer Tomsen,Terry R. Weiss, August 16, 2013
A Utah federal district court is the latest to join the chorus of opinions holding that a would-be arbitration claimant cannot proceed with a FINRA arbitration because the investor was not the brokerage firm’s customer. Orchard Securities LLC v. Pavel. A host of district and appellate...

Supreme Court Extends PLIVA to Preempt Certain Design Defect Claims Against Generic Manufacturers
Robert P. Charrow, August 13, 2013
In Mutual Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142 (U.S. June 24, 2013), the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision building on PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. --- (2011), held that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted a state law design defect action against a generic drug manufacturer that...

D.C. District Court Upholds SEC's Conflict Minerals Rules, GAO Report Questions Effectiveness on Humanitarian Efforts
Barbara A. Jones, July 26, 2013
On July 23, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with a challenge by the National Association of Manufacturers, The Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce...