Coffee, Donuts and a Meet & Confer on Electronically Stored Information

Dunkin’ Donuts sued to terminate a franchise agreement on the basis the Defendants breached their contract by erroneously reporting employee wages on an IRS W-2 Form and trademark infringement.  Dunkin’ Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. Grand Cent. Donuts, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52261, 4-5 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2009).  The[…]

Read more

The Plumbing of a Motion to Compel

In a product defect case about brass plumbing fittings, the Defendants fought a motion to compel electronically stored information relevant to class certification, because of undue burden and cost.  They lost…in large part. In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47636, 1 (D. Minn. June[…]

Read more

Follow the Court Order: If You are Ordered to Produce Searchable PDF’s, Don’t Produce TIFFs without Searchable Text

Gamesmanship is the harbinger of bad lawyer reputations.  Not obeying Court orders can be the death warrant on how the judge will view you every time you appear in her courtroom.  One can imagine how things will go for a party when this is the opening line of an opinion:[…]

Read more

Is ONE Keyword Adequate for a Search?

Magistrate Judge Facciola’s Asarco, Inc. v. United States EPA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37182 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2009) dealt with a very brief issue: Was one keyword adequate for the search of electronically stored information?  Short answer: No In Asarco, the Plaintiff opposed a summary judgment motion and sought leave[…]

Read more

I Fought the Law…The Government’s Discovery Obligations in Civil Litigation

“Like any ordinary litigant, the Government must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is not entitled to special consideration concerning the scope of discovery, especially when it voluntarily initiates an action.”  Judge Scheindlin once again delivered a powerful opinion with SEC v Collins & Aikman Corporation 2009[…]

Read more

Whose Search Term is it Anyway?

In Spieker v. Cherokee, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88103 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008), the parties became entangled in a dispute over who created search terms for a set of specific discovery requests.  The Plaintiff had served the Defendant with specifically defined Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 requests[…]

Read more