A white paper by Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. about what a good investigative process should look like within a religious organization.
As if discovery were not complicated enough, now electronic discovery includes text messages. This post presents some current legal rulings and the dangers they flag if a firm incorrectly handles text messages.
Practice Pointers in Responding to Discovery Requests: The Sedona Conference Releases Rule 34(b)(2) Primer
This post refreshes readers on the 2015 Amendments to the federal rules, and highlights key points of the Sedona Conference’s latest publication on responding to discovery requests.
Supreme Court Holds Dismissal Not Required in Case About Extensions of Time Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
Read more about the U.S. Supreme Court’s new case holding that a federal rule limiting extensions of time to file a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional.
Colorado Court of Appeals Not Impressed by Out-of-State Client’s Attempt to Evade Jurisdiction in Colorado Over an Attorney Fee Dispute
Can a Colorado attorney’s out-of-state client, with out-of-state litigation, be sued in Colorado for unpaid fees? A case from the Colorado Court of Appeals says yes, based on standard personal jurisdiction analysis.
Wondering how to file an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit? Read more about the appellate rules and what to expect here.
Don’t forget to protect your business’s data and information when employees leave the company. This post highlights a helpful white paper on the topic of protecting corporate data.
The Colorado Appellate Rules and the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure underwent some changes effective January 1, 2018. Here’s a summary of the rule changes.
A recent Tenth Circuit case provides some good appellate practice pointers for federal court, particularly around procedural quirks in giving the court jurisdiction over your appeal.
“Harm and Proportionality” Still Applies: The Colorado Supreme Court Clarifies the Sanctions Analysis for Rule 26(a) Violations
The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that the 2015 amendments to C.R.C.P. 26 do not require automatic exclusion of expert testimony when the underlying expert report fails to meet Rule 26 requirements.