ESI Case Law - Page 3 of 112

ILS Team
December 17, 2021

Motion To Permit Introduction of Spoliation Evidence At Trial Granted

In In Re: GOLD KING MINE RELEASE IN SAN JUAN COUNTY, COLORADO, No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ (D. NM Aug 6, 2021) before the Court was the Navajo Nation’s and the State of New Mexico’s (“Sovereign Plaintiffs) and Sunnyside Gold Corporation’s (SGC) Motion for Sanctions arising from the EPA’s alleged spoliation of evidence. At issue was whether ESI

ILS Team
December 10, 2021

GDPR Did Not Bar Discovery Of Documents In Possession and Control Of Foreign Defendants

In ANYWHERECOMMERCE, INC. v. INGENICO, INC., Civil Action No. 19-cv-11457-IT (D. MA. June 3, 2021) before the Court was Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 31, 2020 order regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents. At issue was whether the discovery sought by Plaintiffs could be ordered for production for documents in

ILS Team
December 3, 2021

Motion to Compel Production of Text Messages Granted

In SAGE PRODUCTS v. CHEMRITE COPAC, INC., No. 19 CV 5308 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2021) pending before the Court was a motion by Defendant ChemRite Copac, Inc., to compel Plaintiff, Sage Products, LLC, to produce text messages. This was a breach-of-contract suit between Sage, a manufacturer and supplier of healthcare products, and ChemRite, a

ILS Team
April 29, 2021

Fee Shifting For Response To Subpoena Not Appropriate Where The Non-Party Had Actual Interest In Outcome Of The Case

In SANDOZ v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, Civil Action No. 19-10170 (D.N.J. April 6, 2021) before the Special Master was Defendant United Therapeutic’s motion to compel non-party Liquida to bear the cost of responding to Defendant’s subpoena. During the pendency of the lawsuit, Defendant learned that non-party Liquida would be acquiring Plaintiff. Upon learning of the merger,

ILS Team
April 23, 2021

Evidence Of Defendants’ Intentional Destruction Of Encryption Keys Permitted To Be Presented To Jury

ILS Team
April 15, 2021

Arbitrary Limits On The Number of Custodians And Use of ESI Costs In Different Case To Justify Burden And Splitting of Costs Rejected by Magistrate Judge

In COUNTESS CARY v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP, No. 19 C 3014 (N.D. Illinois February 22, 2021), before the Magistrate Judge was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s production of ESI, which presented multiple issues. With respect to the issue of the number of custodians, Defendant proposed an arbitrary limit of five or seven

ILS Team
April 7, 2021

Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Allegations of Spoliation Overruled

In KIEFFABER v. ETHICON, Civil Action No. 20-1177-KHV (D. Kansas March 25, 2021), Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiffs’ allegations of Defendants’ spoliation. Despite an admission by its corporate designee that Ethicon destroyed tens of thousands of relevant documents in violation of its own document preservation litigation holds, Defendants sought

ILS Team
March 23, 2021

The Fact That Search Terms May Yield A Large Production Does Not Mean The Search Terms Are Too Broad

In Green v. Meeks, Case No. 20-cv-00463-SPM (S.D. Illinois. Jan. 15, 2021), Plaintiff moved for an entry of an ESI protocol allowing for use of search terms to applied to email accounts of 15 individuals employed by Defendant or the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendants objected that the proposed search terms were too broad and

ILS Team
March 17, 2021

Confidentiality Designation Not Appropriate Merely Because A Document Maybe Harmful, Uncomfortable, Or Embarrassing

In IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Civil No. 19-2875 (D.N.J. 2021), the issue before the Court was whether a Confidentiality designation pursuant to a Discovery Confidentiality or Protective Order was appropriate. In this case regarding claims that the generic version of the drug Valsartan for high blood pressure was contaminated with

ILS Team
December 18, 2020

Defendant’s Request For An Order Foregoing Plaintiffs’ Post TAR Review and Cost Shifting Denied by Magistrate Judge

In IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Civil No. 19-2875 (D.N.J. 2020) before the Court was Defendant Teva’s request for an Order to forego additional review of documents that based on its own unilaterally developed and administered TAR, were predicted to be non-responsive. Teva alternatively sought to shift to Plaintiffs the cost

ESI Case Law - Page 3 of 112 - ILS