It’s time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law! We had more than our share of sanctions granted and denied, as well as disputes over admissibility of electronically stored information (ESI), eDiscovery cost reimbursement, production formats and search parameters, among other things. So, as we did last year and also the year before, let’s take a look back at 2013!
read moreIn Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.
read moreIt’s that time of year, where people make predictions for the coming year for all sorts of things, including electronic discovery trends for the coming year. Friday, we covered my first three eDiscovery predictions for 2014. Here are the remaining three predictions.
read moreIt’s that time of year, where people make predictions for the coming year for all sorts of things, including electronic discovery trends for the coming year. Though I have to say, I’ve seen fewer predictions this year than in past years. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to offer some of my own predictions. If they turn out right, you heard it here first!
read moreLast month, we discussed budget calculators available from the Metrics section of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) web site. So far, we have reviewed two of the budget calculators, beginning with the E-Discovery Cost Estimator for Processing and Review workbook provided by Julie Brown at Vorys law firm and the Doc Review Cost Calculator provided by an eDiscovery vendor. Today, we will continue our review of the calculators with a look at the EDRM UTBMS eDiscovery Code Set Calculator provided by Browning Marean, DLA Piper law firm; and George Socha, Socha Consulting (and, of course, co-founder of EDRM).
read more“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result”. To avoid that issue, experienced project managers know the value of conducting a “post-mortem” to discuss any problems encountered during the project and how to avoid repeating them in the future. But, what if you could prevent them from happening in the first place?
read moreIn Fair Housing Center of Southwest Michigan v. Hunt, Michigan Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville ruled that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties in its settlement agreement with the defendants and were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, but slashed the plaintiff’s fee request, “both because the hours devoted to this case were excessive and because the fee request makes no effort to account for the limited success that plaintiffs achieved in this case”.
read moreA couple of weeks ago, we discussed budget calculators available from the Metrics section of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) web site and, two days later, began a review of the budget calculators, beginning with the E-Discovery Cost Estimator for Processing and Review workbook provided by Julie Brown at Vorys law firm. Today, we will continue our review of the calculators with a look at the Doc Review Cost Calculator.
read moreIn SJS Distribution Systems, Inc. v. Sam’s East, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy found the plaintiff’s failure to take “the most basic document preservation steps,” including issuing a litigation hold – “even after it discovered the packaging nonconformities and filed this action” – constituted gross negligence. As a result, an adverse inference instruction sanction was issued against the plaintiff and the defendant was awarded its costs and attorney’s fees associated with its motion to compel.
read moreIn Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable LLC, Puerto Rico Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin found that “plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence to establish that [the defendant] OneLink failed to preserve relevant emails within its control”, but denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions at this time because of the “absence of bad faith” on the defendant’s part and the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate prejudice.
read more