Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
A New Jersey State Court determined the imputed income of a defendant in a child custody case to be $100,000 after reviewing photos from social media submitted by the Plaintiff. Fitzgerald v. Duff, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1376 (App.Div. June 7, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of[…]
Read more
A Court recently held that it was not “impossible” to produce Gmail in native file format. The more accurate holding might have been “in a reasonably useable form.” Keaton v. Hannum, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60519, at *4-5 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 29, 2013). Here is the relevant section from the case: Zook[…]
Read moreCourts will not ReTweet or “Like” discovery requests for social media that are simply fishing expeditions. In Salvato v. Miley, the Plaintiff requested the following discovery: Interrogatory 12 Please identify whether you had any social media accounts and/or profiles including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, you have had at[…]
Read moreMy grandfather grew up a plain spoken farmer in Iowa. He had a bow tie wearing attorney uncle who also knew how to sum up an issue. It is very nice to see a clearly stated order on the form of production from the Northern District of Iowa, Eastern Division[…]
Read moreIt is sad when good arguments fail. Taxation of cost cases frequently deny processing costs of native files, unless there is conversion to a static image. Conversion of native files to static images can significantly increase processing costs, opposed to keeping native files in their original format. It is fitting[…]
Read morePlaintiffs requested email sent to or from the Defendants on November 4, 2011 in their April 10, 2012 discovery requests. The Plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit and an emergency preliminary injunction on November 7, 2011, which was attended by Defense counsel. The Defendants claimed producing the emails was impossible, because[…]
Read moreThe New York Court of Appeals denied Nonparty Twitter, Inc.’s appeal in People v Harris as “academic” and moot, because the Tweets in question had been produced pursuant to the State’s subpoenas. New York v. Harris, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2039 (N.Y. Misc. 2013). The case involved the prosecution of an[…]
Read moreThere are attorneys who believe the most effective Rule 26(f) meet and confer is simply meeting at dawn with dueling pistols. The parties in Procongps, Inc. v. Skypatrol, LLC, fought over proclaimed inadequate productions, failures to adequately meet and confer and the defensibility of their productions. Procongps, Inc. v. Skypatrol,[…]
Read moreW Holding Co. v. Chartis Ins. Co., is a case involving competing proposed discovery protocols. The parties include the FDIC as the receiver of a bank and the former bank directors & officers in a $176 million suit with claims of negligence in making loans. W Holding Co. v. Chartis[…]
Read moreHow do you know there is a duty to preserve? When two managing officers involved in the termination of an employee are repeatedly asked by an attorney for their electronic calendars, including a letter threatening an EEOC complaint if there was not an amicable resolution, and then followed by formal discovery[…]
Read more