<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court rejects bright-line or categorical approaches when assessing the acceptability of ediscovery misconduct, preservation efforts, or sanctions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hinshawlaw.com/practicalediscovery/2010/03/10/court-rejects-bright-line-or-categorical-approaches-when-assessing-the-acceptability-of-ediscovery-misconduct-preservation-efforts-or-sanctions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hinshawlaw.com/practicalediscovery/2010/03/10/court-rejects-bright-line-or-categorical-approaches-when-assessing-the-acceptability-of-ediscovery-misconduct-preservation-efforts-or-sanctions/</link>
	<description>Analysis of emerging electronic discovery trends</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:42:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brendan Ansier</title>
		<link>http://blog.hinshawlaw.com/practicalediscovery/2010/03/10/court-rejects-bright-line-or-categorical-approaches-when-assessing-the-acceptability-of-ediscovery-misconduct-preservation-efforts-or-sanctions/comment-page-1/#comment-639</link>
		<dc:creator>Brendan Ansier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hinshawlaw.com/practicalediscovery/?p=709#comment-639</guid>
		<description>Good argument for the development of an effective legal hold process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good argument for the development of an effective legal hold process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

