Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Plaintiffs 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 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 moreI am gonna to hit the brakes, he’ll fly right by me. Maverick, Top Gun You’re gonna do what? Merlin, Top Gun Attorneys feel compelled by their duty of competency to their clients to have eyes on every document that might be privileged. Given cases such as J-M Manufacturing it[…]
Read moreIn an employment dispute, the Defendant sought access to the Plaintiff’s Facebook profile and personal computer. The case had involved several discovery disputes challenging the Plaintiff’s discovery productions. Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38795, 5-9 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2013). Among the discovery requests, the Defendant requested[…]
Read moreI had the good fortune to organize a seminar on responding to electronic discovery requests for the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Civil Practice Committee on February 27, 2013. However, this seminar was different from other eDiscovery CLE’s, because the attendees spent a full hour conducting searches for responsive ESI[…]
Read moreThis case is my eDiscovery nightmare. Worse than a clown with snakes. Let’s review what happened. The case involved numerous allegations of discovery wrongdoing against the Plaintiff. The Defendants brought a motion for “discovery abuses intended to harass defendants, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” The[…]
Read moreThere are judges who have a way with words when they want to make a point. One example of such judicial prose was by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows in Botell v. United States: At this juncture, the United States has purportedly been looking for documents for months, yet the[…]
Read more
Letters versus telegrams. Faxes versus emails. Attorneys must be familiar with the many ways people have communicated in the everyday course of their lives. “Social media” is just another evolution in technology for possible sources of electronically stored information. Robinson v. Jones Lang Lasalle Ams., is a case centering on a motion[…]
Read moreForm of Production in eDiscovery A discussion of the form of production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34, plus one recent case. Rationally Organized Productions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E) Production requirements for documents and electronically stored information under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)[…]
Read more
A company outsourcing payroll, human resources and other business services to third parties is standard operating procedure today. However, what happens when there are discovery requests for a party’s business information hosted by a third-party? Such discovery requests caused a court to play butcher to carve out the discovery obligations[…]
Read more