Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
A Plaintiff in a civil lawsuit deactivated her Facebook profile on the advice of her attorney after the duty to preserve triggered. The Plaintiff claimed she used the account to primarily communicate with her family. Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74248, 4-7 (D.N.D. May 29, 2014).[…]
Read moreA Plaintiff brought a motion for tortious spoliation of evidence for the alleged destruction of a native file report after the duty to preserve triggered. The Defendants produced the written report, but the native file and its metadata were gone. Raines v. College Now Greater Cleveland, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS[…]
Read moreHere are two tips on social media discovery: Tip One: Get an expert who knows how to collect the electronically stored information on social media. Tip Two: Downloading a Facebook profile, printing it, and conducting document review for redactions is not the best way to produce social media. The Defendants[…]
Read more
Fighting over discovery search methodology makes me think of President Richard Nixon’s resignation speech: “Always remember, there are those who hate you. And the only way to keep them from winning is to hate them right back. And then you destroy yourself.” Attacking a party who used predictive coding to[…]
Read moreDrafting discovery is an art. While painting in oils or pastels is certainly more colorful than drafting requests in Times New Roman or Ariel, both require thought. And like any masterpiece, drafting a request for production can have its challenges. A Requesting Party demanded an opposing party produce “[a]ll email and[…]
Read moreRequesting social media relevant to a lawsuit should be done as standard operating procedure now. However, some attorney have a difficult time with narrowing their requests beyond, “Produce your Facebook profile.” Such fishing expeditions are summarily denied. See, Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387 ( E.D. Mich. 2012),[…]
Read more
A prevailing party sought $61,548.65 in costs. They got $7,106.65. Kwan Software Eng’G v. Foray Techs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63933, 10-19 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2014). United States District Judge Susan Illston is very good at eDiscovery disputes. This case highlights the importance of not just knowing how to conduct[…]
Read more
A producing party claimed that it was “impossible” to produce Gmail in Native File Format because, “Gmail account user and Google does not permit its users to copy e-mails and documents in native format.” As such, the Defendant produced the gmail emails by forwarding them to the Plaintiff. Sexton v.[…]
Read moreWe live in a world where people walk around with phones that have more computing power than the Lunar Lander. A recent case highlighted the importance of how data on these devices can enter a lawsuit. In US v Davis, Instagram photos were used to help demonstrate a conspiracy between the[…]
Read more
Can a producing party argue for cost-shifting to the defendant based on proportionality for the production of work-related emails on a plaintiff’s gmail account? Owens v. Clear Wireless LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26698, 4-6 (D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2014). Short answer is no, because the emails are not inaccessible[…]
Read more