Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
The iceberg in Trilegiant Corp. v. Sitel Corp., was the dissolution of Howrey LLP. The Howrey partner representing the Plaintiff was able to line up a lifeboat before Howrey sank, but the Chicago Howrey office suddenly closed before he started at his new firm. The client case files had not[…]
Read moreThe Defendants in Specht v. Google, Inc., sought of $21,951.16 for discovery costs. $17,778.64 of that total was for creating digital versions of the discovery. Specht v. Google, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68968, 9-11 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2011) As a general rule, such costs are taxable if the[…]
Read moreIn a case involving 1st Amendment and RICO allegations by two correctional officers, third-party electronic discovery was sought from different state law enforcement agencies. Couch v. Wan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68017, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2011). The Third-Party sought an order requiring cost-sharing of the electronic discovery. […]
Read moreVermont: Personally important because it is the State where I get many of my bow ties (along with the ones for the high school mock trial team I coach). Vermont is legally relevant because it is the land of a state Supreme Court decision on whether you have a legitimate[…]
Read moreIn General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, the Requesting Party sought production of 463,000 recordings of sales phone calls. And like one of the old long distance commercials of the 1980s, the Requesting Party was left crying at the end. General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, 2011 U.S.[…]
Read moreThe Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging copyright infringement against the online proprietors of Korean pop music website where the Defendants “post, organize, search for, identify, collect and index links to infringing material that is available on third-party websites,” which the Plaintiff claimed was a “a one-stop shop for infringing material.”[…]
Read more
The Plaintiffs in Livermore v. Arnold failed to produce their initial disclosures by a Court ordered deadline. The Defendants sought production of the initial disclosures through email correspondence, only to have the Plaintiffs not respond to the disclosure request, but other issues in the email. Other attempts were also unanswered.[…]
Read moreGo “On the Record” with the Santa Clara County Bar Association Civil Practice Committee’s new expert deposition seminar on June 22 at 6:00pm. To register, click here. “On the Record” is a seminar with Judge Gregory Ward (retired), author of California Objections (James Publishing). After the brief introductory material by[…]
Read moreHow many times can a litigant ignore his discovery obligations before his misconduct catches up with him? The plaintiffs in this case failed to produce documents in response to a discovery request. Then they proceeded to violate not one but two judicial orders compelling production of the requested materials. After[…]
Read moreThe Plaintiffs in Gaalla v. Citizens Med. Ctr., brought a sanctions motion for alleged spoliation of email stored on back-up tapes. The parties and Court had never discussed the issue of back-up tapes until the Plaintiffs’ spoliation motion. Gaalla v. Citizens Med. Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57317, 2-3 (S.D.[…]
Read more