Our Insights on eDiscovery

Read on to learn more about the latest trends and insights in the world of digital discovery.

Close
Enter your
text here

Defendant Ordered to Produce Emails Between Non-Attorney Employees That Were Deemed Privileged: eDiscovery Case Law

In 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

Samsung Doesn’t Have to Write a Check After All…Yet: eDiscovery Case Law

A couple of weeks ago, we revisited the Apple v. Samsung case, which we covered so much last year, it had its own category in our annual case law review. On September 18, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple’s motion for partial final judgment in the case that Apple lodged against Samsung in 2011, seemingly clearing the way for Apple to collect $548 million in damages from Samsung. But, on Friday, Samsung received an emergency stay on that order.

read more

Redactions Aren’t Always as Straightforward as You Think: eDiscovery Best Practices

On the surface, it may seem easy enough to redact a document during eDiscovery review to obscure confidential or privileged information. You may think that all you need to do is draw a black box over the affected text, but there’s actually a lot more to consider in order to ensure that you don’t inadvertently produce information that was intended to be redacted. Here are a some redaction failures and how to avoid them.

read more

Defendant Compelled to Restore and Produce Emails from Backup Tapes: eDiscovery Case Law

In United States ex rel Guardiola v. Renown Health, Nevada Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke concluded that emails contained on backup tapes held by the defendants was not reasonably inaccessible due to undue cost and, even if the emails were reasonably inaccessible due to undue burden or undue cost, “good cause supports their discoverability”. Also, after an analysis of cost-shifting factors found only one factor favored cost-shifting of the production of emails to the relator, Judge Cooke ordered the defendant to bear the cost of restoration and production.

read more

This Study Says Two-Thirds of Law Firms Still Have No Staff Devoted to Information Security: eDiscovery Trends

Not surprisingly, a major “hot” topic at ILTACON earlier this month was cybersecurity. Stories about data hacks are abundant and you may not even know if the law firm holding your data has ever suffered a breach. A new study, introduced at ILTACON earlier this month, aims to shed light on security assessment practices of legal organizations in North America.

read more

Despite Failure to Implement a Litigation Hold, Defendant Escapes Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law

In Flanders v. Dzugan et. al., despite the fact that the defendant failed to implement a litigation hold, Pennsylvania District Judge Nora Barry Fischer denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions alleging the defendants failed to preserve evidence relevant to the case, finding that the plaintiff “cannot show any evidence was actually lost or destroyed”, “cannot show that if evidence was lost or destroyed, it would have been beneficial to his case” and “[n]or can Plaintiff show bad faith”.

read more