eDiscovery Daily Blog

• November 23, 2015

It’s Thanksgiving week! Personally, I have a lot to be thankful for, including a successful year so far at my company CloudNine and (most of all) my family, including my wife Paige and my kids Kiley and Carter (and our dog Brooke too). With it being a short holiday week, it seems like a perfect opportunity to catch up on cases we’ve covered recently with a case law pop quiz.

If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! If not, we’ve provided a link to the post with the answer. We’re that nice. Test your knowledge! Tomorrow, we’ll post the answers for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.

1. In which case was the plaintiff sanctioned twice with adverse inference instructions for tampering with ESI in discovery, without having the case dismissed on either occasion?

A. HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, et al.

B. Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al.

C. Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc.

D. Lynn M. Johnson v. BAE Systems, Inc. et. al.

2. In which case was the plaintiff ordered to pay for the cost to produce files in native format after the plaintiff originally produced unsearchable PDF images without metadata?

A. HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, et al.

B. Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al.

C. Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc.

D. Lynn M. Johnson v. BAE Systems, Inc. et. al.

3. In which case was the plaintiff ordered to image its sources of ESI and compelled to produce ESI responsive to twenty disputed discovery requests?

A. HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, et al.

B. Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al.

C. Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc.

D. Lynn M. Johnson v. BAE Systems, Inc. et. al.

4. In which case were the two attorney defendants sanctioned with “the strongest possible adverse inference” for egregious spoliation of ESI?

A. HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, et al.

B. Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al.

C. Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc.

D. Lynn M. Johnson v. BAE Systems, Inc. et. al.

5. Which of the following cases resulted in sanctions being recommended against the defendant?

A. Malibu Media, LLC v. Tashiro

B. Malibu Media, LLC v. Michael Harrison

C. Sanctions Were Recommended in Both Cases

D. Sanctions Were Recommended in Neither Case

6. In which case did the judge grant the plaintiff’s motion for a deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the defendant’s self-collection methodology?

A. Giuliani v. Springfield Township, et al.

B. Burd v. Ford Motor Co.

C. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

D. GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.

7. In which case did the court deny the plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions, citing a lack of motive or intent?

A. Giuliani v. Springfield Township, et al.

B. Burd v. Ford Motor Co.

C. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

D. GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.

8. In which case was a special master assigned to the case to assist with issues concerning Technology-Assisted Review (TAR)?

A. Burd v. Ford Motor Co.

B. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

C. GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.

D. Charvat et. al. v. Valente et. al.

9. In which case did the court deny the plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions against the defendant for routine deletion of files of departed employees?

A. Burd v. Ford Motor Co.

B. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

C. GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.

D. Charvat et. al. v. Valente et. al.

10. In which case did the judge grant the defendant’s motion to file under seal specific line items from third-party eDiscovery vendor invoices?

A. Burd v. Ford Motor Co.

B. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A.

C. GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.

D. Charvat et. al. v. Valente et. al.

As always, please let us know if you have questions or comments, or if there are specific topics you’d like to see covered.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.