In Irth Solutions, LLC v. Windstream Communications LLC, Ohio Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson, rejecting the idea that a clawback agreement always protects against waiver of privilege for inadvertently disclosed materials, found that privilege was waived by the defendant’s inadvertent but “completely reckless” production of privileged materials – not once, but twice.
read moreIn Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle, New York District Judge Robert W. Sweet, among other rulings, issued an adverse inference sanction against one of the defendants for its failure to preserve text messages in the possession of a non-party, finding that defendant had control of the non-party’s text messages, given that he was contracted by the defendant and provided documents and gave a deposition during discovery.
read moreIn Winfield, et al. v. City of New York, New York Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, after conducting an in camera review of the defendant’s TAR process and a sample set of documents, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion, ordering the defendant to provide copies of specific documents where the parties disagreed on their responsiveness and a random sample of 300 additional documents deemed non-responsive by the defendant. Judge Parker denied the plaintiff’s request for information about the defendant’s TAR process, finding no evidence of gross negligence or unreasonableness in their process.
read moreNow that you understand GDPR better, what should you do? Here are the steps that all companies should complete to prepare for the GDPR.
read moreInitial hopes were that the GDPR would promote eDiscovery cooperation between the US and Europe by standardizing data protection laws and regulations among the 31 EEA nations and the US. But instead, some sections of the new regulation emphasize even further the difference between US law and the European countries mentioned in Part One.
read more2017 was a very interesting year for eDiscovery case law and the impact of FRCP rules changes in 2015 became even more apparent. How can the key case law decisions affect discovery within your organization? This CLE-approved* webcast session will cover key 2017 case law decisions covered by the eDiscovery Daily blog and what the legal profession can learn from those rulings.
read moreIn E.E.O.C. v. GMRI, Inc., Florida Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, in a very lengthy and detailed order, denied in part and granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of paper applications, interview booklets, and emails. Judge Goodman did not grant the request for most-severe type of relief sought – permissible inferences at the summary judgment and trial stages – but did rule that the plaintiff could “present evidence of the purportedly destroyed and/or missing paper applications, interview booklets and guides, and emails to the jury” and “argue to the jury that Seasons 52 acted in bad faith (as defined by Rule 37(e)(2))”, which could lead to the jury inferring that the lost ESI was unfavorable to the defendant.
read moreThe first and overriding concept to be understood in dealing with the GDPR is how the regulation defines personal and sensitive data and then to determine how those definitions relate to data held by your organization. Once you understand those concepts, you can proceed to pinpoint where any data meeting the definitions is created managed and stored.
read moreWe’re getting close to the end of another year. What do organized people in eDiscovery do when that happens? Start planning for next year.
read moreEurope’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is set to take effect in less than 200 days. It is important to understand the changes this new set of regulations will impose, but it is also important to understand that even if you don’t have a physical business presence in Europe, the GDPR may apply to you. Any organization that retains personal information of any EU individuals must act to comply with the GDPR.
read more