Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Responding to requests for production requires the producing party to have a plan for document review. What defines that an email message is responsive? What are the privileges in the case? What information needs to be redacted for production? How are privileges asserted in a privilege log? Lawyers who do[…]
Read more
A Plaintiff sought from the Defendant the Plaintiff’s entire work email inbox from 2001 to present “in unrestricted and searchable ‘PST’ file format.” Odeh v. City of Baton Rouge E. Baton Rouge (M.D.La. Mar. 29, 2016, No. 14-793-JJB-RLB) 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41079, at *7-8. In addition to the fact[…]
Read more
Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd engaged in very granular analysis of discovery requests for email messages in a wage and hour case. This type or analysis is a mainstay in many motions over discovery requests, but likely will be more common as Federal Courts conduct proportionality analysis. The Court first summarized[…]
Read more
There are many lawyers who have an unnatural fear of producing associated metadata with ESI productions. I have always viewed this as producing printed paper without ink on the pages. This is one of cases where I scratch my head at the way the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is[…]
Read more
The new Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are bringing new voices to discuss eDiscovery. Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang issued a thoughtful opinion of the new Rules in Kissing Camels Surgery Ctr., LLC v. Centura Health Corp. (D.Colo. Jan. 22, 2016, Civil Action No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW) 2016 U.S. Dist.[…]
Read moreThe form of production and metadata are center of many motions in compel. One such battle was fought in a case in Alaska regarding insurance coverage. The requesting party sought the production of an affidavit of a deceased insured that was key to determining whether a vehicle was covered or[…]
Read morePick your battles is a truism in form of production disputes. In Feist v. Paxfire, Inc., the Plaintiff alleged the Defendant made multiple discovery abuses, from producing email in .msg format and not as TIFF, to making an “intentionally burdensome production.” Feist v. Paxfire, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145024[…]
Read moreThe Plaintiffs and Defendants in a SEC case highlight the importance of proportionality between asymmetrical parties. In such cases, one side has all of the electronically stored information for discovery requests; the other side does all the requesting. However, the smaller party can have an extremely high burden reviewing any[…]
Read moreA New York state judge confronted the issue of producing system metadata in a medical malpractice case where the plaintiff had to have a foot amputated due to post surgical complications. Vargas v Lee (Sup.Ct.) 2015 NY Slip Op 31048(U), ¶¶ 3-5. The case is direct and thoughtful on the[…]
Read moreA requesting party issued a third party subpoena on the ATF for email messages created between 2000 to 2009. The Court denied the production of the messages on the grounds the emails were not reasonably accessible because of being stored on back-up tapes. The moving party also failed to demonstrate[…]
Read more