Forensically Examining A Lawyer’s Computer

In a dispute over a will and deed transfer, a New York State Court ordered the examination of a lawyer’s computer. The idea of an attorney’s computer being searched by third parties should scare lawyers to death. The attorney objected on the grounds the examination would violate the attorney-client privilege[…]

Read more

You Do Have to Look for Discovery in Your Possession

A Producing Party (the Defendant) argued against searching for responsive electronically stored information, claiming “that the mere fact an employee might have discoverable information or relevant knowledge does not necessarily mean she possesses relevant documents.” McNearney v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108386, 14-16 (W.D. Wash. Aug.[…]

Read more

No Request, No Motion to Compel

The Plaintiff in ADT Sec. Servs. v. Pinancle Sec., LLC, objected to a Magistrate Judge’s denial to a motion to compel to redo the Defendant’s search for responsive ESI. The Plaintiff’s argued the Defendants failed to search individual employee computers and back-up tapes. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s highlighted a considerable disparity[…]

Read more

eDiscovery Does Not Mean Esoteric Discovery

News Am. Mktg. In-Store Servs., is a breach of contract case involving multiple eDiscovery disputes.  According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did the following: Destroyed relevant email evidence, including an email server; Failed to produce responsive documents in discovery due to the above failure; and Failed to run appropriate ESI searches[…]

Read more

The Fabric of Inadequate Search & Spoliation Allegations

In a case involving claims of copyright infringement of fabric design, the tapestry of the Plaintiff’s discovery production was challenged, including allegations the Plaintiff: Neglected to search for and produce several categories of documents; and Deleted relevant emails. The Defendants sought an order permitting a forensic examination of Plaintiff’s computer[…]

Read more