-
Are Back-up Servers and Back-up Tapes the Same Thing in eDiscovery?
In the last post, we discussed the Defendant’s meager ESI production in Knickerbocker v. Corinthian Colleges, Case NO. C12-1142JLR (W.D. Wash. April 7, 2014). Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for failing to produce Plaintiffs’ email communications within their control, among other deficiencies. (Read the prior post for a fuller
-
Is an Email CC’d to Non-Parties Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege?
In a case alleging employment discrimination, Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, Case No. 11-cv-2116 (SRN/SER)(D.Minn. March 7, 2014), a redacted email caused a dispute over attorney-client privilege. The Defendant Embassy contended that a redacted email was subject to privilege as it contained a “discussion of legal advice.” Plaintiff Ewald alleged
-
¡Que Lastima! Spanish Search Terms Lead to Plaintiff eDiscovery Dispute
Recently, we blogged about the plaintiff ESI at issue in Procaps S.A. v. Patheon, Inc., Case No. 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D.Fla. February 28, 2014). In that case, the magistrate ordered the plaintiff to participate in crafting necessary search terms. There is now a follow up interlocutory order regarding Patheon’s Motion for Adequate
-
Metadata Offers Crucial Evidence in Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Gardner v. Cafepress Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-1108-GPC-JMA(S.D.Cal. February 26, 2014) is a copyright infringement case. Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff alleged Defendant uploaded a copyright image of Plaintiff’s for its own commercial use. In opposition
-
Damaged Original Disk Did Not Warrant Adverse Inference Instruction for eDiscovery Spoliation
Never send anything that’s an original without first making a copy. Simple advice, but it still rings true when dealing with electronic data. For a case where a party sent an original disk which got damaged and there was no copy, see Cognex Corp. v. Microscan Systems, Inc. 2013 WL
-
Defendants’ “Retention Policy” Deemed Ineffective After ESI and Emails Deleted
In an Order dated November 25, 2013 in Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg., LLC et al., Civil No. 10-0541-GPC(WVG)(S.D.Cal.), the Magistrate Judge considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions based on defendants’ alleged spoliation and discovery abuses. In this patent infringement case, Plaintiffs informed Defendants in August 2008 that
-
Plaintiff eDiscovery Costs and Attorney Fees Taxable as a “Prevailing Party” After Settlement
In a housing discrimination case, Fair Housing Center of Southeast Michigan v. Hunt, Case No. 1:09-cv-593 (W.D. Mich. October 21, 2013), plaintiffs and defendants were able to come to a settlement agreement after three years in litigation. The settlement provided for defendants to pay plaintiffs $47,500 for their damage claims,
-
Plaintiff Attorney Fees Imposed for Defense Production’s “Severe Shortcomings”
As electronically stored information (ESI) is now a standard part of the discovery process in most civil litigation, it is inexcusable to not issue proper ESI litigation holds and deliver the electronic data in a timely manner. For a case demonstrating “severe shortcomings” for defendant’s ESI production, read the case
-
U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin Provides Lessons on Electronic Evidence Spoliation
Prejudice is Presumed When ESI Destruction is Willful Who better to review a case regarding allegations of electronic evidence spoliation than U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, author of the groundbreaking Zubulake decisions? In Sekisui American Corporation v. Hart, 12 Civ. 3479 (S.D.N.Y. August 15, 2013), the honorable district
-
Class Action Attorney Requests $24 Million in Fees but Deleted Electronic Data…What is a Court to Do?
In an order handed down August 7, 2013, a California Court of Appeals considered a class action attorney fee request of $24 million. The case is Ellis v. Toshiba, Nos. B220286, B227078 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013), and it has a very long history. The basic issue on appeal is whether