Search for: "UBS WARBURG LLC"
Results 21 - 40
of 68
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2012, 6:00 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 9:54 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 317 (S.D.N.Y.2003). [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 2:21 pm
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]
8 Jun 2007, 11:54 am
UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 5:03 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422, 432 (S.D.N.Y.2004). [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]
26 May 2009, 1:35 am
UBS Warburg LLC. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 8:14 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y.2003); Rowe Entertainment, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 12:21 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 7:28 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (SDNY 2003). [read post]
17 Jan 2009, 3:12 pm
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
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]
31 May 2009, 4:27 am
UBS Warburg LLC, the Vice Chancellor decided not to shift costs of production. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 2:14 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 7:52 am
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]