-
Neither The Attorney-Client Privilege Nor Work-Product Doctrine Prohibits The Disclosure of Factual Information About A Party’s Discovery Efforts
In GINA VASOLI v. YARDS BREWING COMPANY, and TREVOR PRICHETT, Civil Action No. 21-2066 (E.D.P.A. Nov. 1, 2021), at issue was whether Defendants withheld ESI that would have been pertinent to Plaintiff’s employment discrimination and retaliation case. During discovery, Defendant Yards Brewing Company, LLC (“Yards”), and its Chief Executive Officer,
-
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.
-
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
-
Evidence Of Defendants’ Intentional Destruction Of Encryption Keys Permitted To Be Presented To Jury
[kc_row use_container=”yes” force=”no” column_align=”middle” video_mute=”no” _id=”935427″][kc_column width=”12/12″ video_mute=”no” _id=”803459″][kc_column_text _id=”725881″] In DOUBLELINE CAPITAL v. ODEBRECHT FINANCE, No. 17-CV-4576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021), a securities fraud lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought sanctions against Defendants, specifically, a mandatory adverse inference instruction at trial, as remedy for Defendants’ intentional destruction of encryption keys needed to
-
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
-
Motion To Compel Granted Following Finding that Defendant’s Self Collection Of ESI Was Inadequate
In EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. M1 5100 CORP., d/b/a JUMBO SUPERMARKET, INC., No. 9:19-cv-81320-WPD (S.D. Fla. 2020), the District Court granted, in part, Plaintiff’s motion to compel after finding that Defendant’s self-collection of ESI was inadequate. In this case, Plaintiff, the EEOC, filed it’s complaint under the Age Discrimination
-
In Denying Forensic Exam, Court Rules that FRCP 34(a) Does Not Create A Routine Right of Direct Access To Electronic Information Systems
In The Ruby Slipper, LLC v. Belou, et al, No. 18-1548 (E.D. La April 6, 2020), Chief Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Supplemental Forensic Examination which sought to forensically examine previously undisclosed computers on the grounds that Defendant did not violate the previous Order on Protocol
-
Meet And Confer Impasse Reached With “OK. File Motion to Compel” Response
In White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin., No. C19-0284-JCC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2020), a Washington judge granted Defendant’s motion to compel after finding that Plaintiff’s conduct and responses did not reflect a good faith effort to comply with discovery rules. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide
-
Claw Back of Inadvertently Produced Data Permitted Despite Lack of Rule 502(d) Order
In Bellamy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Texas, LLC, No. SA-18-CV-60-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2019), a Texas District Judge ruled that Defendant was entitled to “claw back” certain documents it unintentionally produced. However, the Judge still considered the inadvertently produced documents in analyzing Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and granted Plaintiff’s motion
-
Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for His Entire PST File
In Russell v. Kiewit Corp., No. 18-2144-KHV (D. Kan. June 4, 2019), a Kansas Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s request to receive his entire e-mail personal storage (PST) file on the grounds that such a request was overbroad and not proportional to the underlying action. This case stems from Plaintiff’s allegations