Admissibility Cross-Complaint Litigation 
E-Discovery LLC
JULY 3, 2025
She claimed that her complaint led to her termination on August 26, 2022. The Court recited the key facts: “Plaintiff cites additional explicit text messages between herself and Mr. Roberts in her Complaint.” “At Second , it wrote that the duty to preserve “is triggered when litigation is reasonably anticipated.”
E-Discovery LLC
JULY 22, 2025
And when they do, the consequences can be stark – and potentially irreversible by the Executive’s own admission [in Abrego Garcia v. And, it also suggests that the Complaint does not identify any waiver of sovereign or absolute judicial immunity, and asserts that there is none in circumstances such as this.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
E-Discovery LLC
JULY 3, 2024
The action was pending on cross-complaints for limited and absolute divorce. Wife noted that Husband’s refusal to provide discovery had been a continuing problem throughout the litigation. Ferko , 2024 WL 3221108 (Apls. Wife requested that the court sanction Husband by precluding him from presenting evidence at trial.
WA Bar News
JULY 10, 2024
Via Orders entered on March 15, the Washington Supreme Court took the following actions pursuant to its inherent power over admission to practice law: Adopted the NextGen Bar Exam, with first administration to be in July 2026. See Sidebar No. SIDEBAR No. Watch for continuing coverage in future issues of Bar News.
Complex Discovery
MAY 30, 2025
Recent FTC complaints against AI companion apps, such as Replika, have raised concerns about deceptive marketing practices and the targeting of vulnerable users. In litigation or compliance reviews, this data may be subject to discovery, raising complex questions about consent, scope, and admissibility.
E-Discovery LLC
NOVEMBER 29, 2024
Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it is obligated to implement a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure that potentially relevant evidence under its control is identified, located, and preserved for use in the anticipated litigation….” The Court, however, held that the Town had a duty to institute a litigation hold.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
Let's personalize your content