You May Soon Be Told to “Go Jump in a Lake” for Your ESI: eDiscovery Trends
A data lake, that is. So, what is it and why should you care? Let’s take a look.
read moreCourt Agrees that Emails Including Counsel Aren’t Privileged Because They Don’t Offer Legal Advice: eDiscovery Case Law
In Guardiola v. Adams Cty. School District No. 14 et al., Colorado District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore overruled the defendants’ objection to the magistrate judge’s order compelling them to disclose three e-mails that they contended were subject to the attorney-client privilege, ruling that “[t]he disputed e-mails do not directly request or offer legal advice.”
read moreCourt Grants Motion to Compel in Elizabeth Holmes Theranos Criminal Case: eDiscovery Case Law
In United States v. Holmes, et al, California District Court Judge Edward J. Davila granted the defendants’ motion to compel federal prosecutors to produce material responsive to six requests from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), disagreeing with the prosecution’s contention that it could not be compelled to produce documents from under Rule 16 because it lacked access to them.
read moreThe Files are Already Electronic, How Hard Can They Be to Load?: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays
Since hard copy discovery became electronic discovery, I’ve worked with a number of clients who expect that working with electronic files in a review tool is simply a matter of loading the files and getting started. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple! Let’s discuss some examples as to why.
read moreWhy Process in eDiscovery? Isn’t it “Review Ready”?: eDiscovery Best Practices
As I’ll point out in tomorrow’s blog post (spoiler alert!), I’ve been asked a variation of this question for years. But, perhaps the best answer to this question lies in Craig Ball’s new primer – Processing in E-Discovery.
read moreTime for Another Murder (Possibly) Witnessed by Alexa: eDiscovery Trends
It’s been a while since we covered a good murder case with Internet of Things (IoT) implications. Here’s a new case in Florida where police have submitted a search warrant to Amazon for recordings from an Echo device in a household where a man was charged with killing his partner with a spear(!).
read moreCourt Denies Motion to Bar Plaintiff From Making Adverse Comments Regarding Defendant’s Failure to Produce Key File: eDiscovery Case Law
In Saulsberry v. Savannah River Remediation, LLC, South Carolina District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs denied without prejudice the defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiff from Making Adverse Comments Regarding Defendant’s Failure to Produce Certain Records, finding that defendant “has not demonstrated that the contents of the missing Lash Investigative File would necessarily replicate, but not add to, the information provided in the record.”
read moreHere’s a Webcast That Will Discuss the DO’S and DON’TS of 30(b)(6) Witness Depositions: eDiscovery Webcasts
As we learned in Tom O’Connor’s recent six part blog series, Rule 30(b)(6) permits a party to notice or subpoena the deposition of an organization which then must then designate one or more individuals who consent to testify on its behalf about information “known or reasonably available to the organization.” But, how should it be conducted to maximize the discovery obtained, what are some strategies to consider to help ensure a successful deposition and what are some common mistakes to avoid? And, what are some eDiscovery related topics about which a 30(b)(6) witness should be prepared to testify? Here’s a webcast that will answer those questions – and more!
read moreNo Joke, It’s Ten Years of eDiscovery Horrors!
Today is Halloween! This is our tenth(!) year to identify stories to try to “scare” you with tales of eDiscovery, data privacy and cybersecurity horrors because we are, after all, an eDiscovery blog. Let’s see how we do this year. Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?
read moreCourt Denies Petitioners’ Motion to Quash, But Also Finds Subpoena Is Not Within Scope of Discovery: eDiscovery Case Law
In the case In re Verizon Wireless, Maryland Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day denied the petitioners’ Motions to Quash the respondents’ subpoena, finding that the petitioners did not have sufficient standing to have the subpoena quashed for phone numbers owned by Prince George’s County. However, Judge Day also found that the subpoena was overbroad and was not within the scope of discovery and, as a result, granted the petitioners’ Motions for Protective Orders.
read more