Our Insights on eDiscovery

As we noted Monday and yesterday, eDiscovery Daily published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 56 unique cases! Yesterday, cases related to mobile device discovery, technology assisted review, the use of sampling to settle disputes, objections to production requests, an update on an interesting dispute between an eDiscovery provider and their former sales people and the final(?) post regarding the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung case. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to sanctions and spoliation.

As we noted yesterday, eDiscovery Daily published 65 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 56 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to possession, custody and control, privilege disputes and form of production disputes. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to mobile device discovery, technology assisted review, the use of sampling to settle disputes, objections to production requests, an update on an interesting dispute between an eDiscovery provider and their former sales people and the final(?) post regarding the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung case.

It’s that time of year again! Time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law! This is our eighth(!) annual review of cases that we covered on the eDiscovery Daily blog over the past year. As always, we had a number of interesting cases related to various eDiscovery topics. So, as we have done for the last seven(!) years, let’s take a look back at 2018!

2018 was another notable year for eDiscovery case law with several significant rulings that stand to impact eDiscovery practices and the admissibility of evidence. How can these key case law decisions affect discovery within your organization? Here’s a webcast that will discuss key case law rulings from last year and their impact on this year.

In Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. v. Atchison, Oklahoma District Judge Timothy D. DiGiusti granted the “Children” defendants’ Motion to Compel against non-party City of Oklahoma City Police Department (“OCPD”) to comply with the Children’s subpoena of records related to the murder of their father in a civil case with the insurance company.

In Miller v. Sauberman, New York Supreme Court Justice Joan A. Madden, despite the defendant’s estimated cost of $250,000 to produce metadata related to the plaintiff’s medical records, denied the defendant’s motion for a protective order and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel the production of that metadata within 30 days of the decision and order.

In U.S. v. Leyva, Michigan District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, while acknowledging that the ruling in Carpenter v. United States (which held that the government must obtain a warrant before acquiring cell site location information (“CSLI”)) “applies retroactively” to the defendant’s case, ruled that “the question of whether a constitutional right is retroactive is distinct from the question of whether an individual is entitled to a remedy from any constitutional violation”. Citing the “good-faith” exception, where law enforcement acts in good faith in obtaining evidence that is ultimately found to have been obtained in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights, Judge Goldsmith denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of Carpenter.