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

Simon Says – Once, Twice, Three Times a Spoliator: eDiscovery Case Law

In Univ. Accounting Serv., LLC v. Schulton, Oregon District Judge Michael H. Simon granted in part the plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions Against Defendant Ethan Schulton, finding that the defendant “acted with the intent to deprive” the plaintiff of information that he deleted, but granted the plaintiff’s alternative motion for lesser sanctions, choosing to provide the jury with a permissive inference spoliation instruction against the defendant instead of case termination sanctions.

read more

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Timeliness and Form Served Arguments; Grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel: eDiscovery Case Law

In Frey v. Minter, Georgia Chief U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant’s discovery requests were untimely and were not properly served and granted the defendant’s motion to compel against the plaintiff. With regard to the defendant’s motion to compel against a non-party law firm, Judge Clay ordered that firm to provide the defendant with an estimated cost for responding to the requests, and upon payment of those costs, to produce the documents within twenty-one days.

read more

Discovery “Cautionary Tale” Leads to Recommendations of Default Judgment Against Defendants: eDiscovery Case Law

In Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Adelphia Supply USA, et al., New York Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, noting that the plaintiff’s motion for case ending sanctions against H&H Wholesale Services, Inc., its principal, Howard Goldman, and its marketing manager and Mr. Goldman’s wife, Lori Goldman (“H&H Defendants”) for wide-scale discovery misconduct “presents a cautionary tale about how not to conduct discovery in federal court” recommended that the plaintiffs’ motion be granted, and that the Court should enter a default judgment against the H&H Defendants.

read more

Determining Appropriate Sample Size to Test Your Search: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays

One part of searching best practices is to test your search results (both the result set and the files not retrieved) to determine whether the search you performed is effective at maximizing both precision and recall to the extent possible, so that you retrieve as many responsive files as possible without having to review too many non-responsive files. One question I often get is: how many files do you need to review to test the search? Let’s take a look.

read more

#metoo and the Increasing Investigation Emphasis on eDiscovery: eDiscovery Trends

In our April webcast (Discovery Isn’t Just for Litigation Anymore), conducted by Tom O’Connor and me, we discussed a number of factors that are increasing the need for eDiscovery software and services, including compliance considerations with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The need for eDiscovery in internal investigations is on the rise as well and one of the most significant factors is workplace harassment and #metoo, which we also discussed in that webcast. Here’s another indication of the growth of that factor.

read more

My Guest Post for Complete Legal: eDiscovery Best Practices

You might think that since I write a daily blog, I have no time to do any other writing on the side. And, a lot of times, that’s true. However, I wrote a guest blog post recently for our good friends and Kansas City partners at Complete Legal and so I’ve decided to point to that blog post for today to give our readers a chance to read that post.

read more