Total Articles: 38
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 17, 2017
In Mirmina v. Genpact, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00614 (D. Conn. July 27, 2017), a federal court in an employment discrimination matter denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, finding that the defendant’s reliance on an employee involved in the litigation to self-select relevant documents was appropriate under the circumstances
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 02, 2017
Magistrate Judge Iain D. Johnston recently held that sanctions were not warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) against a defendant who admitted to erroneously destroying electronically stored information (ESI). While the court did not condone the defendant’s actions (describing them as “disturbing”), it reasoned that the ESI “did not appear to be relevant” and therefore did not prejudice the plaintiff.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 15, 2017
A California federal trial court has granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel re-production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in native format with all associated metadata, while also granting plaintiffs their “reasonable expenses” incurred, including attorneys’ fees, in making their motion.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 09, 2017
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen agreed with UPS that it did not have to spend six months and $120,000 to recover data stored on backup tapes that may not be relevant to the case if UPS prevails in its efforts to limit the scope of the putative class’s claims. Instead, the Court directed the parties to share information and agree upon an appropriate methodology for statistical sampling.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 07, 2017
In one of the first cases interpreting newly amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, F.T.C. v. DirecTV, Inc., 15-cv-01129-HSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176873 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016), Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James of the Northern District of California denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude spoliated evidence that was relied upon by defendant’s expert, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to show sufficient prejudice to warrant such a sanction. The Court, however, did order that defendant’s expert sit for a four hour deposition to cure any prejudice resulting from defendant’s failure to engage in “best practices” related to the preservation of such evidence.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • December 19, 2016
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner recently decided that sanctions, including attorney’s fees and costs, were appropriate as a result of evidence of a defendant’s failure to preserve relevant electronically stored information (“ESI”) after receiving a preservation letter from the plaintiff in a wrongful death action.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • November 28, 2016
Senior United States District Judge Terrence McVerry granted a party’s motion to compel the opposing party to meet and confer regarding search terms to apply to electronically stored information.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • November 10, 2016
In a recent decision from the Western District of North Carolina, the Court discussed the importance of preserving text messages from accidental destruction due to a loss of a party’s cell phone.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 18, 2016
District Judge Katherine Polk Failla imposed significant sanctions in Arrowhead Capital Finance, LTD v. Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126545 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2016), following Defendants’ repeated failure to cooperate in discovery and comply with the terms of her previously issued discovery orders.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 12, 2016
A federal court in Texas recently refused to enforce the parties’ discovery agreement with respect to plaintiff’s request that the defendant produce all non-privileged documents responsive to search terms agreed to over email. In BancPass, Inc. v. Highway Toll Admin., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96978 (W.D. Tex. July 26, 2016), the Court addressed a dispute between two companies that provide mechanisms for motorists to pay highway tolls while driving rental cars. In an effort to cooperate on electronic discovery in the case, BancPass and the Highway Toll Administration (“HTA”) negotiated certain search terms that the parties would use in order to locate and produce potentially responsive documents.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 28, 2016
A federal court in Utah recently applied the newly amended Rule 37(e) and, in doing so, issued relatively limited sanctions following a finding of spoliation.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 19, 2016
A federal court in Pennsylvania recently ordered a former executive to respond to costly and expansive discovery requests in a case where the former executive allegedly set up a competing business in violation of his employment agreement. Although responding to the discovery was expected to be a costly endeavor, the Court in First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. John A. Folino (E.D. Penn. August 11, 2016) nevertheless rejected the defendant’s financial hardship argument based on the fact that he recently received $5 million for the sale of two companies to the plaintiff.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 14, 2016
According to a recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, a party may satisfy its obligations under Rule 34 when—in response a demand for the production of documents—the party states how the party limited its search for responsive documents, but does not specifically identify the documents that have been withheld.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 29, 2016
The importance of timely implementing a litigation hold cannot be overemphasized. In Bruner v. American Honda Motor Company, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 62810 (S.D. Ala. May 12, 2016), the plaintiffs, who were involved in an accident involving a 2007 Honda Civic, sought potential e-mails related to airbags installed in Civics during a ten-year span encompassing the model year of the accident vehicle. The defendant argued that under the applicable document retention policies, any such e-mails would have been destroyed after thirty days and, therefore, no such documents existed. The defendant further asserted that it had undertaken a thorough search of its various electronic communication systems and had found no documents.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 16, 2016
A federal court in Washington recently denied a motion to compel the production of archived emails stored on backup tapes, rejecting the plaintiffs argument that the defendants culpability in failing to preserve the emails in a more accessible format outweighed the burden and cost to the defendant of restoration.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 12, 2016
By now we’re all familiar with the language recently implemented in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, providing employers with some protection against unreasonable demands related to ESI: “A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 02, 2016
A federal court in Virginia recently granted a plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to search its computer systems for electronically stored information, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the requested ESI was “inaccessible” due to burden and cost and that the requested discovery was not proportional to the needs of the case. In Wagoner v. Lewis Gale Med. Ctr., LLC (W.D. Va.), the plaintiff sued defendant Lewis Gale Medical Center alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 13, 2016
A common question that often arises is whether to physically collect/copy a person’s e-mail account once that person is placed on a litigation hold. Rather than copy the e-mail account, many companies will simply turn off the “auto-delete” function and issue the employee a preservation notice. By doing so, the company is essentially preserving in place. Although some may question this method of preservation, it is no different than if an employee had a box of potentially relevant documents in his office and, rather than make a copy of the box, the employee was instructed to continue to hold the box in his office until further notice. In most situations, this should be sufficient to satisfy a company’s preservation obligations.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 24, 2016
Well-known predictive coding expert attorney, Maura Grossman, and her husband, noted information scientist, Gordon Cormack, recently began on article in Practical Law magazine with the assertion:
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 07, 2016
This is Fourteenth and Final blog in a series on two-filter document culling. (Yes, we went for and obtained a world record on longest law blog series!) Document culling is very important to successful, economical document review. Please read parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen before this one.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • December 11, 2015
This is part Twelve of the continuing series on two-filter document culling. (Yes, we are going for a world record on longest law blog series.:) Document culling is very important to successful, economical document review.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • December 02, 2015
This is part Eleven of the continuing series on two-filter document culling. (Yes, we are going for a world record on longest law blog series.:) Document culling is very important to successful, economical document review. Please read parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten before this one.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • November 10, 2015
This is part Ten of the continuing series on two-filter document culling. This is very important to successful, economical document review. Please read parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight and nine before this one.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 06, 2015
This is part Seven of the continuing series on two-filter document culling. This is very important to successful, economical document review. Please read parts one, two, three, four, five and six before this one.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 04, 2015
his is part five of the continuing series on two-filter document culling. This is very important to successful, economical document review. Please read parts one, two, three and four before this one.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 23, 2015
This is part four of the continuing series on two-filter document culling. Please read part one and part two and part three first. Hopefully you will like this part four sequel better than Harper Lee’s sequel.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 20, 2015
When federal agents execute a warrant for paper documents during an investigation of a company, they generally seize only the documents in the warrant and leave the rest of the physical documents behind. Where it is not practical to search on site, the law permits them to take all the records and review them later. However, even in that case, once the agents have conducted the search, they return the documents that the warrant does not cover. However, this does not necessarily apply to a computer or other digital media because the agents cannot cut off a piece of a physical hard drive. Thus, agents either keep the entire physical hard drive or make a perfect copy of all its information.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 16, 2015
This is part three of the continuing series on two-filter document culling.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • May 20, 2015
In Lord Abbett Mun. Income Fund., Inc v. Asami, No. C-12-03694 DMR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014), United State Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the plaintiff’s motion for permission to no longer preserve computer workstations that were peripheral to discovery. The court extended and applied Rule 26(b) proportionality to the issue of ESI preservation, and gave dispositive weight to the plaintiff's sample-based review of the contents of the devices.
Ogletree Deakins • June 21, 2011
These days discovery is haunted by the twin specters of high compliance costs and sanctions for failure to meet compliance obligations. Nowhere are these more evident than in the class or collective action context, since the scope of discovery in such actions is generally substantially broader than in an individual claim.
Nexsen Pruet • May 10, 2011
No. 1: Failing to understand what electronically stored information (ESI) your client or the opposing party has.
Nexsen Pruet • May 10, 2011
The 12/1/06 rule changes make explicit the duties that already existed. Electronically stored information (ESI) has been discoverable for a long time.
Nexsen Pruet • September 20, 2010
Russell Burke authored an article entitled "Social Networking Discovery: Get Used To It." It appeared in Strictly Speaking a publication of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar.
Fisher Phillips • March 03, 2009
Hopefully, nothing in this article about the dangers of e-mails, memorandums, etc. will be news to you. You may even say to yourself "Who didn't know that?" Well, apparently some folks "forget" from time to time that information in e-mails, memorandums, and other documents is discoverable in litigation and may be the basis for large amounts of money changing hands. The information in them may or may not convey the author's actual beliefs or motivations – but it may be a jury who decides.
Nexsen Pruet • March 13, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court
approved amendments to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to
discovery of electronically stored
information (ESI) that took effect on
December 1, 2006. The new rules
substantially alter prior practice by
requiring litigants to, among other
things, exchange, during the initial
Rule 26(f) conference, detailed information
about ESI, including how it is
stored, whether it is being preserved
and whether the information is reasonably
Fisher Phillips • March 05, 2007
In recent years, far too many employers who are not sure how to protect their electronic information have allowed departing employees to take their most valuable trade secrets, degrade the value of their electronic data for litigation purposes, or have seen critical electronic evidence completely destroyed, exposing their organizations to serious civil and criminal liability.
Fisher Phillips • February 12, 2007
Recent changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will have an enormous impact on employment litigation over the next several years. The changes, which went into effect December 1, 2006, are designed to focus more attention on “e-discovery,” the production of electronic documents in court proceedings. These new rules will be a significant challenge for every employer who faces a lawsuit from now on.
Nexsen Pruet • January 03, 2007
Amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to the exchange of electronic data during course of litigation went into effect on December 1, 2006.