LawSites

MARCH 19, 2024

You may know it more through its brands, including ServeNow for finding process servers, One Legal for California court filing, LawToolBox for court calendaring, and the Legal Talk Network group of legal podcasts. InfoTrack may be one of the fastest growing yet least known legal technology companies in the United States.

e-filing 124

e-filing Litigator Litigation e-records 124

LawSites

SEPTEMBER 1, 2021

Gavin McGrane was a litigation attorney in San Francisco when he saw an opportunity to improve how legal professionals interface with the federal courts electronic records system, PACER, and to enable them to better tap into the data and knowledge contained within that system. . We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. .

Court 118

Court e-filing e-records Document automation 118

LawNext podcast

MARCH 18, 2024

You may know it more through its brands, including ServeNow for finding process servers, One Legal for California court filing, LawToolBox for court calendaring, and the Legal Talk Network group of legal podcasts. InfoTrack may be one of the fastest growing yet least known legal technology companies in the United States.

e-filing 40

e-filing Litigator Litigation e-records 40

Eric Goldman

AUGUST 11, 2023

The district court said that the buyers who made their purchases on the website had to go to arbitration, but the buyers who made their purchases on their mobile devices could stay in court. The court says it’s immaterial that there is a potentially long time delay between user registration and the purchases. Sadlock v.

e-records 98

e-records Court Law Law 98

LawNext podcast

AUGUST 31, 2021

Gavin McGrane was a litigation attorney in San Francisco when he saw an opportunity to improve how legal professionals interface with the federal courts electronic records system, PACER, and to enable them to better tap into the data and knowledge contained within that system. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.

e-filing 40

e-filing e-records Document automation Court 40

Joshua Gilliland

JANUARY 7, 2016

The City did not issue a litigation hold until three years AFTER the complaint had been filed. The Court stated that litigation hold was not effectively communicated and the officers listed in the City’s initial disclosures did not acknowledge receiving the hold notice. The Court applied the elements from Chin v. Stinson, at *5.

Litigator 52

Litigator Litigation e-discovery e-filing 52

Eric Goldman

MAY 15, 2024

In so holding, however, the Court declined to resolve the logically antecedent question of whether the discovery rule applies to the three-year copyright statute of limitations, finding “that issue is not properly presented here, because Warner Chappell never challenged the Eleventh Circuit’s use of the discovery rule below.” Nealy , No.

Court 105

Court e-discovery Defendant e-filing 105