Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
In a multi-party complex case, the parties agreed to the production of electronically stored information as TIFFs or JPEGs with fields of information that did not reflect the metadata of the native files. The original production fields included: beginning bates number, ending bates number, page count, CD volume name, producing[…]
Read moreThe Fourth Paraben Forensic Innovation Conference was November 5-9 in Park City, Utah. This is by far one of my favorite conferences of the year, because of the excellent content of the presentations and the extreme creativity of the Paraben Team. Plus, any conference that provides homemade sugar-free cookies as[…]
Read moreIn Sundown Energy, L.P. v. Haller, the Defendant (Requesting Party) brought a motion to compel the Producing Party to produce electronically stored information in native file format. The Defendant had specified “native format” as the form of production in their request for production. Sundown Energy, L.P. v. Haller, 2011 U.S.[…]
Read moreIn a case involving alienation of affection, the Plaintiff sought early discovery on third party electronic communication service providers. Dockery v. Horvath, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124997, 2-3 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 27, 2011). The case was in procedural limbo, because the Defendants were in New York state, had not filed[…]
Read moreA Defendant/Producing Party resisted production of email in native file after making general objections to the production format. Linnebur v. United Tel. Ass’n, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124473, 20-21 (D. Kan. Oct. 27, 2011). The Producing Party claimed that producing the email messages printed as paper was “sufficient” for the[…]
Read moreA Plaintiff produced Excel spreadsheets in TIFF format. As one could expect, the Defendant brought a motion to compel in native file format faster than you can sort a column in ascending order. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117922 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12,[…]
Read moreA Defendant brought a motion to forensically image the Plaintiff’s “personal computing devices” before a cross complaint had been filed. The motion was denied. Han v. Futurewei Techs., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104538 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011). The case was originally filed in California state court and removed[…]
Read moreIn an age discrimination suit, a Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery was denied by a Magistrate Judge on the grounds the requests were overboard. The Plaintiff challenged Magistrate’s order. The District Court found the requests were also overboard. Doubt v. NCR Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95518, 11-12 (N.D. Cal.[…]
Read more
A Defendant refused to produce ESI claiming the estimated $2,630.00 to search the data was unduly burdensome under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and 26(b)(2)(B). Hudson v. AIH Receivable Mgmt. Servs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39993 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2011). The Defendant was a company of 13[…]
Read moreFacebook sued Named and Unnamed Defendants for trademark infringement. The Plaintiff sought expedited discovery from the Named Defendants to identify the Unnamed Defendants in support of later filing a motion for a preliminary injunction. Facebook, Inc. v. Various, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64539, 6-9 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2011).[…]
Read more