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

Tomorrow’s Webcast Will Help You Get a “Clue” Regarding Your eDiscovery Process: eDiscovery Webcasts

Why am I promoting our monthly webcast today instead of the actual day of the webcast (like I usually do)? You’ll see tomorrow when we publish our ninth(!) annual Halloween list of eDiscovery “frights”. Do you scare easily? Then, DON’T read tomorrow’s post! But, DO attend our webcast tomorrow to get a “clue” regarding your eDiscovery process from me, Tom O’Connor and a special guest! Hint: It’s Mike Q.

read more

Court Grants Adverse Inference Sanction Against Target for Failing to Preserve Surveillance Video: eDiscovery Case Law

In Decker v. Target Corp., Utah District Judge Jill N. Parrish granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ for a finding of spoliation and for sanctions, granting the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for failing to preserve more of the video surveillance footage of the plaintiff’s trip and fall accident, but denied the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for failing to preserve training records and the store’s safety statistics and records for 2015.

read more

Mike Q Says the Weakest Link in TAR is Humans: eDiscovery Best Practices

Remember The Weakest Link? That was the early 2000’s game show with the sharp-tongued British hostess (Anne Robinson) telling contestants that were eliminated “You are the weakest link. Goodbye!” Anyway, in Above the Law (Are Humans The Weak Link In Technology-Assisted Review?), Mike takes a look at TAR and concludes that when TAR has problems, it’s because of the people.

read more

Here’s a Terrific Scorecard for Mobile Evidence Discovery: eDiscovery Best Practices

As we’ve noted before, eDiscovery isn’t just about discovery of emails and office documents anymore. There are so many sources of data these days that legal professionals have to account for and millions more being transmitted over the internet every minute, much of which is being transmitted and managed via mobile devices. Now, here’s a terrific new Mobile Evidence Burden and Relevance Scorecard, courtesy of Craig Ball!

read more

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