We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Maura E. McKenna Ballard Spahr LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 5



District court extends cost-shifting to pre-certification discovery in class action *

USA - August 24 2012
A concern that discovery burdens can "force a party to succumb to a settlement that is based on the cost of litigation rather than the merits of the case" has led to several significant decisions on discovery costshifting in the past several years

Co-authors: Carl G. Roberts.


Pennsylvania adopts limited set of eDiscovery rules *

USA - June 12 2012
In a move likely to be greeted as much with criticism as relief, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently adopted a very limited set of amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure that are expressly designed to make the eDiscovery process less complicated than in the federal system.

Co-authors: Philip N. Yannella.


New York federal court issues landmark opinion on predictive coding *

USA - February 29 2012
In a seminal opinion that will likely be cited by litigants for years, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck of the Southern District of New York became the first federal court judge to formally consider and approve of the use of computer-assisted document review in electronic data discovery.

Co-authors: Philip N. Yannella.


Recent TREC study reveals possible eDiscovery cost savings *

USA - December 28 2011
The increasing cost of eDiscovery remains a significant challenge for litigants, particularly corporate defendants.

Co-authors: Philip N. Yannella.


Federal Circuit adopts Model Order to curtail the expense of eDiscovery *

USA - November 29 2011
Moving to stem the rising costs of electronic discovery, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently adopted a Model Order that sets out concrete discovery requirements designed to limit the scope of eDiscovery in patent cases.

Co-authors: Robert R. Baron, Jr., Philip N. Yannella.