Paralegal Division
Paralegal Division The Paralegal Division of the State Bar of Texas WE PROVIDE
  leadership
  professionalism
  public service
The Paralegal Division of the State Bar of Texas
Paralegal Division
 
Paralegal Definition and StandardsCLE, online and ready for you!Texas Paralegal Journal

ET AL.

Return to Contents


Court Case Update/Technology Updates

Court Case Updates

Creditors will not be able to use the theory of "deepening insolvency" as a separate tort against lenders, for the reason that it would be duplicative of other torts already established in Texas. In the case of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of VarTec Telecom Inc., et al v. Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative, pending before the Honorable Harlin D. Hale, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge of Dallas, Judge Hale dismissed the Creditors Committee’s deepening insolvency claim, but left its other claims pending before the court. Judge Hale wrote "The willful and malicious lending of money is not a tort in Texas and likely will not be recognized as one anytime soon through a theory of deepening insolvency." The idea behind the theory of "deepening insolvency" is that a defendant’s conduct fraudulently prolonged a company’s life beyond insolvency, resulting in damage to the company because of increasing debt.

Technology Updates

Confusion Reigns in the field of electronic data discovery ("EDD") for 2006. There are now 300-500 vendors offering some form of EDD product or service. These products and/or services may include search engines, archiving tools, document management solutions, litigation support systems, just to name a few. Some may offer licensed software, other sell EDD as a service.

The biggest issue facing firms when assessing their needs and looking to implement EDD is "which part of the EDD process do we need to address?" The confusion arises not just from which features to seek but how to implement EDD. Whether to subcontract or license the software and do it themselves. Other issues involve managing the costs of EDD. With the volume of electronic data rising dramatically, clients have a powerful economic necessity to reduce the amount of data to be processed and analyzed. The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now give official standing to EDD in addition to promulgating numerous rules regarding EDD. But even Rule 26(B)(2), which stipulates date should be reasonably accessible, is unlikely to reduce volumes.

The top nine (9) popular EDD products are: Concordance, Summation, CaseMap, Microsoft Access, Attenex, Encase, IConect, Introspect and LiveNote. However, no single tool or service handles everything. Firms are usually left to piece together multiple tools.

The search capabilities in most tools cover email and Microsoft Office file formats and attachments. The more powerful tools also search relational databases, images, instant messages, RSS fees, CAD/CAM files and more. However, most firms are barely getting started with EDD basics.

With more and more plaintiffs starting to pursue electronic discovery issues, most law firms and corporate legal departments are turning to outside companies to help them manage and process portions of the data. Doing this can save time, money and energy. However, it is important to establish a relationship with a reliable vendor before taking on large cases. But, smaller cases that just require looking through Microsoft Office, Word or Excel documents are easier to handle in-house.

It is important to avoid disaster when dealing with EDD. In the case of Coleman Parent Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 2005 WL 674885, Fla.Cir.Ct., March 23, 2005, Morgan Stanley, was fined millions of dollars for a "willful and a gross abuse of its discovery obligations." The company neglected to reveal and produce electronic discovery evidence, and the court ruled that "many of these failings were done knowingly, deliberately, and in bad faith." The cost of mismanaging electronic data can also be huge. In the case of Laura Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, et al, 217 F.R.D. 309, 312 (S.D.N.Y 2003), a New York jury awarded securities broker Laura Zubulake $29-million in a sex discrimination suit after she claimed her employer, UBS, failed to retain incriminating emails. In the Zubulake case, Judge Scheindlin opined a "list of e-discovery action items," and other points, including the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Legislative Updates

All current legislation is in committee and no committee is currently meeting.

 

Texas Paralegal Journal © Copyright 2006 by the Paralegal Division, State Bar of Texas.

Top of Page

 

markup graphic
markup graphic markup graphic
markup graphic markup graphic markup graphic
State Bar College
Texas Lawyers Care
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
State Bar of Texas
State Bar of Texas Insurance Trust
Pro Bono College of the State Bar of Texas

Home | About PD | Membership | TPJ Online | Vendors | Links | Contact | Legal Notices

The Paralegal Division of the State Bar of Texas
P.O. Box 1375 Manchaca, Texas 78652
Telephone: (512) 280-1776 — Fax: (512) 291-1170

Web Hosting & Support — Camden Place Ltd., LLC
Please report problems to Webmaster