Our Insights on eDiscovery

In Ariel Inv., LLC v. Ariel Capital Advisors LLC, Illinois District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the prevailing plaintiff’s request to tax most requested costs in the amount of $99,378.32, including the entire amount ($85,666.51) requested for reimbursement for eDiscovery costs.

eDiscovery Case Week continues. The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. Nowhere is that truer than with legal precedents set by past case law decisions, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices. Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?

In HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc. v. Flowers, Georgia District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. denied the plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference sanctions despite evidence that the defendant had used evidence wiping software twice after being ordered to produce her personal computer, stating that the plaintiff “offers only bare speculation that any of its trade secrets or other data were actually transferred” to the defendant’s laptop.

In Solo v. United Parcel Services Co., Michigan Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen agreed that the defendant showed that the level of data requested by the plaintiff “would be extraordinarily burdensome” and ordered the parties to discuss the defendant’s proposed methodology and “meet, confer, and agree on a mutually acceptable sampling methodology” if the plaintiff did not agree to the defendant’s approach.

As someone who writes a blog daily for (part of) my living, I can attest that it can be a challenge to stay on top of eDiscovery trends and case law. I try to do my best to provide some of that to the readers of this blog and, when it comes to case law, we provide posts on about 60 to 70 cases each year (we’re over 400 unique cases covered lifetime). But, here’s a resource that provides access to even more case law, and several other great resources, as well.

In Williams v. Angie’s List, Indiana Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore found that the plaintiffs “have met their burden of demonstrating” that the defendant has a legal right to obtain background data in Salesforce and that “Plaintiffs request for production properly seeks documents within Angie’s List’s ‘possession, custody, or control’ under Rule 34(a).” He also denied the defendant’s request for cost shifting.

In Phoenix Light SF Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., New York Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel in part, ordering the defendant to search for 16,000 loan numbers proposed by the plaintiffs’ and ordered the parties to split the costs for performing the searches.