Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Also Posted on frank! The Nextpoint Blog There are phrases a lawyer never wants to hear a judge say. One is your law firm “acted negligently in failing to comply with its discovery obligations.” Another is your client “acted willfully in failing to comply with its discovery obligations and assist[…]
Read moreForm of Production in eDiscovery A discussion of the form of production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34, plus one recent case. Rationally Organized Productions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E) Production requirements for documents and electronically stored information under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)[…]
Read moreA 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
A company outsourcing payroll, human resources and other business services to third parties is standard operating procedure today. However, what happens when there are discovery requests for a party’s business information hosted by a third-party? Such discovery requests caused a court to play butcher to carve out the discovery obligations[…]
Read moreThe Defendant, apparently well versed in social-media, requested “[a] complete copy of all communications” between specific individuals and the Plaintiff sent on “Facebook, in a blog, via e-mail, text message, voicemail, letter, facsimile, or anywhere else.” The Defendant requested the ESI be produced in their “original, unaltered form.” Armstrong v.[…]
Read more
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
The adequacy of searches for electronically stored information is often a challenge technically and procedurally for attorneys. The case of Mullen v. United States Army Crim. Investigation Command directly outlined how to evaluate whether a search was adequate. Searching for Adequacy & Reasonableness A search for responsive discovery is reviewed on[…]
Read moreA criminal Defendant in a gang case challenged the search of his smartphone and reading of his text messages by a detective. The California Court of Appeal said 1) the search was valid pursuant to the search warrant and 2) the police officer could read the text messages. People v.[…]
Read moreDefendants subject to a discovery stay brought a motion for clarification on discovery between non-parties, starting additional discovery on third parties and issuing litigation litigation-hold subpoenas to third parties. City of Lindsay v. Sociedad Quimica Y Minera De Chile S.A., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87672, 1-2 (E.D. Cal. June 22,[…]
Read moreJudge Susan Illston could not simply Tweet her decision with 140 characters in Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp. Twitter sued the Defendants on numerous causes of action for the Defendants’ alleged spamming activity, including breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and unfair or deceptive business practices. Twitter, Inc.[…]
Read more