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 Rejects Plaintiffs’ “Mindlessly Deficient” Objections to Native Format Production: eDiscovery Case Law

In McDonnel Grp., LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. et al., Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to compel, granting the defendants’ requests for the plaintiffs to produce construction schedules in native format, to identify responsive materials already produced to other specified defendants’ requests and to provide a privilege log for any documents withheld based on privilege to those requests. Judge Wilkinson denied the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the defendants’ motion.

read more

Court Rules “No Harm, No Foul” in Allowing Clawback After Protective Order Deadline: eDiscovery Case Law

In the case In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig., Florida Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones denied the plaintiff’s Disclosure Motion regarding two documents that defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) claimed were privileged and inadvertently disclosed, stating that “[a]lthough BMS might not have followed the precise terms of the Protective Order”, “the one-day delay in sending the privilege log can charitably be described as a situation where the expression ‘no harm, no foul’ applies.”

read more

Judge Recommends Sanctions for Defendant Under FRCP 37(e)(1): eDiscovery Case Law

In Franklin v. Howard Brown Health Ctr., the Illinois Magistrate Judge, stating that “the defendant has had to concede that, at the very least, it bollixed its litigation hold – and it has done so to a staggering degree and at every turn”, recommended that the plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions be granted to the extent that the “parties be allowed to present evidence and argument to the jury regarding the defendant’s destruction/failure to preserve electronic evidence in this case”.

read more

eDiscovery Project Management from Both Sides: eDiscovery Best Practices

Project Management has been a major topic at trade shows recently, especially when Mike Quartararo is speaking. But after listening to Mike speak at the recent ILTACON18 conference, Doug Austin mentioned to me that it seemed there is another side to PM that is being ignored, that of the lawyer’s opinion on the subject. Since discovery is the most time-consuming and expensive aspect of litigation, managing it effectively is always a concern of the lawyers but we seldom hear what they think of all the talk about PM. So, let’s look at the issue from both sides now.

read more

Court Plays Referee in Search Term Dispute Between Parties: eDiscovery Case Law

In Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser Int’l, Inc., Kansas Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s Motion to Compel ESI Discovery, sustaining in part the plaintiff’s overbreadth and relevance objections to specific defendant ESI Requests by providing a compromised scope between the defendant’s proposed searches (deemed to be overbroad) and the plaintiff’s proposed searches (deemed to be too narrow).

read more

IoT Devices Lead to Suspect’s Arrest for Murder: eDiscovery Trends

Honestly, I don’t know why anyone would consider committing a violent crime these days. There’s the use of ever-improving DNA technology that leads to the arrest of scores of alleged offenders each year – even if you’re not in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database, you can still be identified as a suspect through your relatives via genealogy databases, as we’ve recently seen in the case of the Golden State Killer. And, if your DNA doesn’t get you, an Internet of Things (IoT) device may, as evidenced in this case.

read more