CloudNine
In Woodell v. Bernstein, et. al., the California Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which imposed terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence and dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice after the plaintiff had wiped his cell phone, which was key to the case.
read moreDoes that statement seem confusing? Let me explain. Let’s call this a “tip of the day”.
read moreIn Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal denied the defendant’s motion to compel production from personal email accounts of the plaintiff’s employees because the plaintiff did not have legal control of the emails. However, he granted the defendant’s motion to compel production from the plaintiff’s customer communications database operated by a third party vendor, noting that the plaintiff did have control of that data, having already produced data from this source.
read moreBelieve it or not, but LegalTech® New York 2016 (LTNY) is just one week away! eDiscovery Daily will be covering the show for the sixth year in a row. We thought we would take an advanced look at the show and make a couple of initial observations. If you’re attending the show next week, check these out!
read more
The recently released Netflix documentary Making a Murderer has made a huge splash with hundreds of thousands of viewers (including me) having watched the 10 part documentary that was released last month. Debate has raged over whether Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were wrongly convicted of murdering photographer Teresa Halbach. Interestingly enough, some possibly deleted electronic evidence might have helped answer that question.
read more
In Colyer v. City of Chicago, Illinois District Judge Edmond E. Chang granted in part the plaintiff’s post trial motion, denying the plaintiffs’ request for a directed verdict, but granting their request for a new trial after it was discovered that the defendants’ attorney had “intentionally” withheld the recording of a police dispatcher’s description of a possible suspect that was key in determining whether Chicago police officers acted with excessive force in killing a suspect in a traffic stop. The plaintiffs also were awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs expended on preparing for the first trial, conducting the trial itself, and conducting the post-trial discovery and briefing.
read more
Yesterday, we covered the first four questions that you should ask when considering selection of an eDiscovery platform for a case or for your entire organization to use, as discussed in a recent article on Legaltech© News. Today, we’ll cover the remaining four questions.
read more
Considering selection of an eDiscovery platform for a case or for your entire organization to use? A recent article on Legaltech© News provides some useful questions to ask to help select the solution that best meets your needs.
read more
In Hausman v. Holland America Line-U.S.A., et al., Washington District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein vacated a $21.5 million verdict awarded to a man injured by a closing cruise-ship door in 2011 and ordered a new trial, after the plaintiff’s former assistant alleged that he deleted emails that could hurt his case.
read more
In Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the Court, determining that the defendant had spoliated data, found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient facts to warrant striking the defendant’s affirmative defenses, but opted to order an adverse inference instruction and also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in preparing the instant motion for sanctions.
read more