Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Laningham v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86305 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2009) is a factual intense case of a cheerleader claiming unconstitutional gender bias on alleged cheerleader on cheerleader sexual harassment, which deprived the Plaintiff of her educational opportunities. The Plaintiff lost at summary judgment,[…]
Read moreDiscovery Rules with Teeth Here is a great rule with teeth: If you do not disclose ESI or documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a), they are automatically excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(c)(1). In Melczer v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2009 U.S.[…]
Read moreFrom the plains of Kansas comes another short and powerful order by Magistrate Judge David Waxse. On Constitution Day, Judge Waxse was very busy in White v. Graceland College Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85849 (D. Kan. Sept. 18, 2009). For an earlier[…]
Read moreA Plaintiff sued Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., for violating his claimed First Amendment rights by banning the Plaintiff from Sony’s Playstation 3 Network for violating Sony’s terms of use. Estavillo v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86821 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2009). For those[…]
Read moreA Pennsylvania Pro se Plaintiff sued a Massachusetts “cabaret” for its employee’s failure to call 911 while he was being attacked by Hell Angels. No, this is not a “Sons of Anarchy” episode, but an actual court case: Spuglio v. Cabaret Lounge, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20398 (3d Cir. Pa.[…]
Read moreThe Defendants in Green v. McClendon, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71860 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009) attempted to purchase a $4.2 million painting. As the Defendants’ marriage ended in divorce, the Defendants (who never took physical ownership) did not complete their payments. The Plaintiff sought sanctions against both the Defendant and[…]
Read moreDiscussion of Federal cases regarding key word searchers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34.
Read moreIn 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 moreIn depth discussion on discovery obligations from my new seminar on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 26 and 34.
Read moreIn Gotlin v. Lederman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78818 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009), the Plaintiff was precluded from using Italian medical records because of a failure to include the records in their initial disclosures. In the words of the Court, the Plaintiff’s attorney “provided virtually no discovery during the[…]
Read more