Search for: "UBS WARBURG LLC" Results 21 - 40 of 68
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Mar 2011, 2:21 pm by Matthew Nelson
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) [6] Daylight, LLC v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 1:08 am
UBS Warburg is one of five opinions arising out of a retaliatory firing lawsuit. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 9:00 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), ("Zubulake I"), and 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), ("Zubulake III"), set forth a seven-part test used today as the basis for determining whether or not computer-generated data (called "electronic data" in the latest revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and just "data" in this article) is classified as either accessible or inaccessible. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 10:44 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Developing a comprehensive preservation plan to meet these obligations is both critical and difficult. [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 10:35 am
UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Fujitsu Ltd. v. [read post]
2 Jan 2008, 1:53 am
UBS Warburg, LLC (Zubulake VI) in which significant sanctions were imposed as a result of an organization's failure to produce potentially relevant evidence. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 8:14 pm by Fernando M. Pinguelo
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y.2003); Rowe Entertainment, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2009, 3:12 pm by Douglas R. Griess
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), and 2004 WL 1620866 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 10:12 am by K&L Gates
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the court articulated the oft-cited premise that “a ‘litigation hold does not apply to inaccessible backup tapes (e.g. those typically maintained solely for the purpose of disaster recovery), which may continued to be recycled on the schedule set forth in the company’s policy. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 7:52 am by Richard Santalesa
We hold that in deciding these questions, the motion court properly invoked the standard for preservation set forth in Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC (220 FRD 212 [SD NY 2003]; Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v Banc of Am. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 1:33 am
UBS Warburg LLC (Zubulake V) , 229 F.R.D. 422 430 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]