Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
What happens if more responsive documents are found after the case management order setting a required disclosure deadline? Answer: You must supplement your disclosure. In Kutrip v. City of St. Louis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60199 (E.D. Mo. June 30, 2009), the deadline for discovery was November 30, 2006 and[…]
Read moreA soldier was convicted for being absent without leave (AWOL) after finding out his Army unit’s deployment was extended to a year in Iraq. United States v. Scheuerman, 2009 CAAF LEXIS 812, 7-8 (C.A.A.F. 2009). The Defendant claimed he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, which is why he went AWOL. […]
Read moreThe Defendant, a karaoke song provider from California, was sued in Tennessee for copyright infringement for song downloads. The Plaintiffs were a music publisher and claimed ownership of thousands of subject songs that were allegedly infringed on by the Defendants. The Defendants claimed they had no contacts with the state[…]
Read moreWhen, as here, broad discovery requests lead to relevant documents being mixed in with seemingly irrelevant documents, the fault lies just as much with the party who made the request as with the party who produced documents in response to the request. District Court Judge Ted Stewart, Cmty. House, Inc. v.[…]
Read moreIt is generally a bad sign when an opinion begins with a Court banning parties from filing more discovery motions without the Court’s approval. This is one of those cases. Textron Fin. Corp. v. Eddy’s Trailer Sales, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60065 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2009). One of the[…]
Read moreActivities on Facebook, YouTube or any social networking site can land you in trouble. People do not have a blank check to do anything online. Key v. Robertson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51092, (E.D. Va. June 5, 2009) is an example of this situation. When Facebook Goes to a Law[…]
Read moreMagistrate Judge Grimm is no stranger to watershed opinions…and on occasion the 100 page a law review article disguised as an opinion on the admissibility of electronically stored information. Goodman v. Praxair Servs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58263 (D. Md. July 7, 2009) is Judge Grimm’s recent opinion on litigation holds,[…]
Read moreThis motion centers on electronic discovery. The proper handling of electronic discovery is a new and developing area of law practice. The Federal Rules first addressed electronic discovery in 2006 and the Local Rules of this court have yet to provide any guidance on electronic discovery. Therefore, the court appreciates[…]
Read moreThe Plaintiffs in Flying J, Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC brought a motion to compel discovery request for data pertaining to trucker fuel card transactions and for the producing party to create a separate monthly report. Flying J, Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55283,[…]
Read moreThe Defendants in Valeo Elec. Sys. v. Cleveland Die & Mfg. Co., brought a motion to compel the Plaintiffs to organize their electronically stored information production into 28 specific categories to match the Defendants’ discovery requests. The Defense motion was denied. Valeo Elec. Sys. v. Cleveland Die & Mfg. Co.,[…]
Read more