Search for: "UBS WARBURG LLC"
Results 41 - 60
of 68
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2012, 6:00 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [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]
5 Aug 2009, 1:33 am
UBS Warburg LLC (Zubulake V) , 229 F.R.D. 422 430 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
4 Apr 2009, 2:00 am
UBS Warburg LLC, and set the standard for the admissibility of documents in electronic form. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 7:13 am
UBS Warburg LLC 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), which states that courts could consider cost-shifting in a discovery request when "the data requested was relatively inaccessible," and especially where the request was not calculated to discover relevant information. [read post]
17 Apr 2009, 5:27 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), there is one exception to the rule that there is no duty to preserve inaccessible backup tapes: If a company can identify where particular employee documents are stored on backup tapes, then the tapes storing the documents of "key players" to the existing or threatened litigation should be preserved if the information contained on those tapes is not otherwise available. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 12:22 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Zubulake IV) "Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 6:58 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Zubulake IV) - "Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 10:00 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 2003 U.S. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 2:19 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("...plaintiff entitled to all emails and electronic documents relevant to employment discrimination claim, including those only preserved on backup tapes; however, given burden and expense of restoring inaccessible backup tapes, a cost-shifting analysis is appropriate. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 6:57 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217-18 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting William T. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 3:25 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 318-20 (S.D.N.Y.2003). [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 3:08 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 11:37 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y.2004) and Qualcomm, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 3:01 am
Thus, " [o]nce a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents'" (Voom VD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., ___ AD3d ___, 2010 NY Slip Op. 00658 [1st Dept 2012], quoting (Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC, 220 FRD 212, 218 [SD NY 2003] ). [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 3:24 am
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.NY 2003), wherein the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) was forever changed. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 4:07 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also W.E. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 5:00 am
UBS Warburg, LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and subsequent cases;Qualcomm, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 2:50 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280, for the proposition that a cost-shifting analysis may be warranted. [read post]
3 Jan 2008, 2:26 pm
UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), the court observed that plaintiffs needed to establish three elements in order to obtain spoliation sanctions: (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a "culpable state of mind"; and (3) that the destroyed evidence was ‘relevant’ to the party's claim or… [read post]
