Not only is insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, but in eDiscovery review, it can be even worse when you do get a different result.
read moreIn NuVasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med., Inc., California Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz granted the defendants’ motion for adverse inference sanctions for failure to preserve text messages from four custodial employees that were key to the case.
read moreAccording to a new Gartner report released earlier this month, by 2018, at least 30% of the data reviewed in eDiscovery will be stored in the cloud, up from 5% this year.
read moreWhen people ask me how long I’ve been working in the litigation support/eDiscovery industry, I generally tell them “25+ years” (after 25, I just stopped counting). But, there is someone who has been a litigation support professional for over 40(!) years, who recently received a well-deserved recognition for her work over the years. Her name is Robin Athlyn Thompson.
read moreAll three of these eDiscovery providers have been acquired within the last 2 1/2 months. Evolve Discovery? Ditto. Believe it or not, there have been a whopping 35 mergers, acquisitions and investments in the eDiscovery industry so far this year! That’s busy!
read moreIn Whitesell Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. et. al., Georgia District Judge J. Randal Hall denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the defendant for identifying a deponent that (according to the plaintiff) had no particularized information regarding the defendant’s efforts to produce documents, stating that he was “unimpressed” by the plaintiff’s effort to confer on the matter and stating that the “duty-to-confer is not an empty formality”.
read moreIf you don’t, you should. When litigation is anticipated, it’s never too early to begin collecting potentially responsive data and assessing it by performing searches and testing the results. However, if you wait until after the meet and confer with opposing counsel, it can be too late. Let’s look at an example.
read moreIn Prezio Health, Inc. v. Schenk, et. al., after “a careful in camera review” of emails responsive to eighteen keyword search terms, Connecticut Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis ordered the defendant to produce metadata for eight specific emails which had already been produced to the plaintiff.
read moreHere are your ICYMI (In Case You Missed It) weekly summaries of the posts for this week (with links to the full post on our blog site) for you to check out.
read moreIn Cicon v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Pennsylvania District Judge Richard P. Conaboy denied the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to produce attorney-client communications that occurred before the filing of the complaint, but granted his request regarding communications between non-attorney employees before the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter threatening litigation, ordering the defendant to produce those emails, while allowing the defendant to redact explicit discussion of an attorney’s advice.
read more