Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Requesting 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 moreJudge Paul Cherry wrote a masterful opinion involving an EEOC motion to compel production of agreed upon production formats. The case is an excellent example of the issues very alive over the form of production, understanding technology, educating the Court with expert affidavits, and the value of the meet and[…]
Read moreAnderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31025, 3-4 (D.N.M. Mar. 6, 2014), is a detailed review of production requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E). The crux of the case centered on whether scanning paper documents to PDF’s made the discovery “electronically[…]
Read moreA Defendant sought reconsideration of a Court order allowing discovery on their document retention policies and litigation hold strategy on the grounds 1) the order was premature and 2) it was irrelevant and not discoverable. Cactus Drilling Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45251, 11-14[…]
Read moreYou know someone is taking a hit when a judge works in references to Pink Floyd’s “Sorrow” and Simon and Garfunkel’s “Sounds of Silence.” Sound the Division Bell, because there is a Bridge Over Troubled Water. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman did exactly that in Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35225[…]
Read moreYou know someone is taking a hit when a judge works in references to Pink Floyd’s “Sorrow” and Simon and Garfunkel’s “Sounds of Silence.” Sound the Division Bell, because there is a Bridge Over Troubled Water. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman did exactly that in Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35225[…]
Read more