<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court Rejects Attorney&#8217;s Computer Illiteracy As Excuse For Non-Production</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/dumb-and-dumber-sequel-another-attempt-by-attorneys-to-try-and-excuse-non-production-of-esi-with-computer-illiteracy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/dumb-and-dumber-sequel-another-attempt-by-attorneys-to-try-and-excuse-non-production-of-esi-with-computer-illiteracy/</link>
	<description>A Team approach to electronic discovery combining the talents of Law and IT.  The views expressed in this blog are my own, and not necessarily those of my law firm or clients. Copyright Ralph Losey 2008. All Rights Reserved.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:58:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: In Re Discovery &#187; Court Rejects Attorney’s Computer Illiteracy As Excuse For Non-Production</title>
		<link>http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/dumb-and-dumber-sequel-another-attempt-by-attorneys-to-try-and-excuse-non-production-of-esi-with-computer-illiteracy/#comment-4502</link>
		<dc:creator>In Re Discovery &#187; Court Rejects Attorney’s Computer Illiteracy As Excuse For Non-Production</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/dumb-and-dumber-sequel-another-attempt-by-attorneys-to-try-and-excuse-non-production-of-esi-with-computer-illiteracy/#comment-4502</guid>
		<description>[...] Link to blog entry by Ralph Losey posted on e-Discovery Team, December 8, 2007:  Technical Ignorance in invalid grounds for inaccessibility under Rule 26(b)(2)(B) Plaintiff’s counsel in a district court case in Colorado lacked the technical ability to open and read most of his client’s emails. He figured that since he could not read them, he did not have to produce them. Instead of producing the thousands of emails on a DVD containing his client’s college email, he just produced the ten he could read, and ignored the rest. Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of America, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86639 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)&#8230;.  &#160;Print This Post Share This   Close [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Link to blog entry by Ralph Losey posted on e-Discovery Team, December 8, 2007:  Technical Ignorance in invalid grounds for inaccessibility under Rule 26(b)(2)(B) Plaintiff’s counsel in a district court case in Colorado lacked the technical ability to open and read most of his client’s emails. He figured that since he could not read them, he did not have to produce them. Instead of producing the thousands of emails on a DVD containing his client’s college email, he just produced the ten he could read, and ignored the rest. Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of America, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86639 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)&#8230;.  &nbsp;Print This Post Share This   Close [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why it&#8217;s best to be proactive &#171; Post Process</title>
		<link>http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/dumb-and-dumber-sequel-another-attempt-by-attorneys-to-try-and-excuse-non-production-of-esi-with-computer-illiteracy/#comment-4452</link>
		<dc:creator>Why it&#8217;s best to be proactive &#171; Post Process</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:35:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/dumb-and-dumber-sequel-another-attempt-by-attorneys-to-try-and-excuse-non-production-of-esi-with-computer-illiteracy/#comment-4452</guid>
		<description>[...] Being proactive is the key. And, as Ralph Losey might suggest in one of his well-written articles, obtaining a bit of technical competence might not be a bad place to start: [P]laintiff’s position was basically that since the email was [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Being proactive is the key. And, as Ralph Losey might suggest in one of his well-written articles, obtaining a bit of technical competence might not be a bad place to start: [P]laintiff’s position was basically that since the email was [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
