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

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Metadata: eDiscovery Case Law

In 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 more

Despite Protective Order, Court Orders Plaintiff to Produce Source Code and Log File Printouts: eDiscovery Case Law

In 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

Production is the “Ringo” of the eDiscovery Phases: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays

Most of the “press” associated with eDiscovery ranges from the “left side of the EDRM model” (i.e., Information Management, Identification, Preservation, Collection) through the stages to prepare materials for production (i.e., Processing, Review and Analysis). All of those phases lead to one inevitable stage in eDiscovery: Production. Yet, few people talk about the actual production step. If Preservation, Collection and Review are the “John”, “Paul” and “George” of the eDiscovery process, the Production phase is still the “Ringo” of eDiscovery phases, not talked about enough – even though it’s arguably the most crucial step of all.

read more

No Proof of Intent to Deprive Means No Adverse Inference Sanction: eDiscovery Case Law

In DriveTime Car Sales Company, LLC v. Pettigrew, Judge George C. Smith granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against defendant Pauley Motor, denying the plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference sanction by ruling that “DriveTime has not sufficiently demonstrated that Pauley Motor acted with the requisite intent” when Bruce Pauley failed to take reasonable steps to preserve text messages when he switched to a different phone. Judge Smith did “order curative measures under Rule 37(e)(1)”, allowing the plaintiff to “introduce evidence at trial, if it wishes, of the litigation hold letter and Pauley Motor’s subsequent failure to preserve the text messages.”

read more

This Makes the Potential GDPR Fine Against British Airways Look Like Peanuts: Data Privacy Trends

It was just last week that we discussed the new (probable) largest fine since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was enacted last May, with the proposed fine of nearly $230 million against British Airways for a data breach last year. But, this fine approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Facebook for data privacy violations makes that fine look like peanuts.

read more

Thinking Like a Millennial: How Millennials are Changing Discovery, Part Five

The favorite tools of millennials are in use now. We know them. We are trying to adjust to them. But perhaps the problem is not the tools. We must acknowledge the cultural shift in work flows and communication methods influenced by millennials as more employees work remotely, including from home, than ever before. Then we must be prepared to design eDiscovery tools to deal with these changes.

read more

Move Over Google, Here May Be Your New Largest GDPR Fine: Data Privacy Trends

Now, we’re talking some serious money! In January, we covered the first big fine for failing to comply with Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) when France’s data protection regulator, the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), issued a €50 million fine (about $56.8 million) fine to Google for failing to comply with GDPR. Now, we have a new fine being proposed which is more than four times that amount.

read more