Last time, we talked about addressing parameters of production up front to ensure that those requirements make sense and avoid foreseeable production problems well before the production step. Today, we will talk about quality control (QC) mechanisms to make sure that the production is complete and accurate.
read moreIf you keep track of Hollywood news, you probably already know this story. But, as David Horrigan discussed in an article last week, you may not know all the details or what it might mean for future cases.
read moreIn our webcast last week (Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for the First Half of 2019), Tom O’Connor and I discussed several cases where spoliation and sanctions associated with smartphone ESI were the key issue being addressed. Let’s face it, discoverability of mobile devices has become a standard consideration in litigation these days. But, how can you ensure you’re properly preserving the ESI on your smartphone and how can you get the most out of the data it contains? Here’s a webinar TODAY that discusses that very topic!
read moreWe all get the eDiscovery technology is changing – in large part because the demands of eDiscovery are changing. Amazingly enough though, it’s not just about the technology – as a recent article discusses, it’s as much about the training on how to use the technology as it is about the capabilities of the technology itself.
read moreIn Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc. et al., Puerto Rico District Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss for fraud on the Court, denying the defendant’s request for dismissal, but imposing a sanction of adverse inference regarding the content of the plaintiff’s Facebook page and her deletion of the related account. Judge Delgado-Colon also ordered the defendant to “submit a proposed adverse-inference jury instruction to that effect before trial.”
read moreShark Week on the Discovery Channel continues, which means Case Week on the eDiscovery Channel (a.k.a., eDiscovery Daily) continues as well. Despite a few technical difficulties early on, Tom O’Connor and I had another great webcast yesterday on Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for the First Half of 2019. During the webcast, one attendee asked about case law examples where parties have been ordered to produce (or provide access to) databases in response to discovery requests, so I’ve done some research and have the results here.
read moreShark Week on the Discovery Channel continues, which means Case Week on the eDiscovery Channel (a.k.a., eDiscovery Daily) continues as well. So far, 2019 has been another interesting year with notable and important case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices. What do you need to know about the cases to avoid mistakes made by others and save time and money for your clients? In today’s webcast, you can catch up on twenty-two (!) cases from the first half of the year and find out what they mean to you!
read moreIn NuVasive, Inc. v. Kormanis, North Carolina Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld recommended that, “because the record supports but does not compel a ‘finding that [Defendant Kormanis] acted with the intent to deprive [Plaintiff] of the [lost text messages’] use in the litigation, the Court submit that issue to the ‘jury, [with] the [C]ourt’s instruction[s] mak[ing] clear that the jury may infer from the loss of the [text messages] that [they were] unfavorable to [Defendant Kormanis] only if the jury first finds that [he] acted with the intent to deprive [Plaintiff] of the[ir] use in the litigation’”.
read moreIn Washington v. GEO Group, Inc., Washington District Judge Robert J. Bryan denied the defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Metadata, ruling that the defendant “fails to identify a specific response for production to which the State did not respond”, that the defendant “has not shown that the [metadata] is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case” and that the “the parties have not met and conferred as to this recent log as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).”
read moreIn Opternative, Inc. v. Jand, Inc., New York Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce printouts of two files of source code, a printout of a log file, and a listing of directories and files. Judge Netburn ordered the plaintiff to produce the source code and log file printouts requested, but not the file directory listing, choosing to reserve judgment on that for the time being.
read more