Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
A professional photographer took a photo of Willie Nelson at a concert in 2009. The photographer posted the photo on Wikipedia and allowed others to post the image provided they complied with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License. Funny how time slips away, but in April[…]
Read more
Parties who reasonably foresee litigation must preserve ESI that is relevant to the possible lawsuit. Identifying the individuals, subject matter, date range, are the first steps in determining the scope of the duty to preserve. In an EEOC case over age discrimination, a missing letter from an EEOC investigator and[…]
Read more
Judge William Alsup’s Waymo v Uber order is epic Rule 37(e) analysis. The opinion has a substantial amount of detail and legal analysis. There are numerous issues in play and the Court logically addressed them with the precision that Judge Alsup is legendary known for in complex cases. In a[…]
Read more
Companies have a strong interest in making sure proprietary information does not go to competitors. Warning signs are employees who email confidential information to their personal accounts and then delete the sent email from their work email account. The following is one such case where third party email providers were ordered[…]
Read more
Published California eDiscovery cases are as rare as California Condors. However, unpublished California opinions provide a lot of insight in how judges see eDiscovery issues in state court. Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert is a California case regarding spoliation of email messages and the preservation of evidence. Even though it[…]
Read more
The Plaintiffs were granted a TRO, and then a clarifying Preliminary Injunction order, for the Defendant to preserve electronically stored information in a case where a former employee went to a competitor with trade secret information. Henry Schein v. Cook (N.D.Cal. June 22, 2016, No. 16-cv-03166-JST) 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS[…]
Read more
Lawyers are eagerly awaiting Courts to start their engines applying the new Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(e) for sanctions against a party that failed to preserve ESI. However, the case of Bruner v. Am. Honda Motor Co, is a healthy reminder that Courts will keep ordering parties to enact litigation holds.[…]
Read more
We have a new case applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(e): Living Color Enterprises v New Era Aquaculture. My thanks to attorney Chris Dix from the law firm of Smith, Hulsey, & Busey for sending me this case. Chis joined me for a podcast to discuss the case,[…]
Read more
The City of New York, 50 unnamed NYPD officers, and the former NYPD Commissioner are involved in a civil rights lawsuit over allegedly issuing summonses without probable cause, violating the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, if true. The City was found to be grossly[…]
Read more
The duty to preserve is a tricky beast. Determining when a party “knew or should have known that litigation was imminent” is often a free fall into analyzing the facts of when a party had notice of a lawsuit. There are times when it is very obvious that a party[…]
Read more