Lions, Tigers & Bears: Failing to Preserve ESI, Search Terms and Forensically Imaging Computers

In Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25867 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) the Plaintiff brought an action alleging a smear campaign against him. The Defendants in turn claimed the Plaintiff defamed their CEO and caused their stock to drop in value.   No matter what the truth is, these parties are[…]

Read more

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 Return of Covad Communications: Forensic Imaging of Databases & Email Servers

Magistrate Judge Facciola’s “Christmas Eve” opinion now has a sequel: Covad Communs. Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47841 (D.D.C. May 27, 2009).  This opinion is very detailed covering issues of forensic examinations, email servers and commentary on retention policies.  I encourage lawyers to look at this 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

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