-
Well-Pled Allegations are a Requirement to Expand the Scope of Plaintiff eDiscovery
How well-pled are your allegations? Do they justify the scope of electronic discovery you are seeking? In a district court order dated March 5, 2013 in the case US ex rel. King, et al. v. Solvay, Civil Action No. H-06-2662 (S.D.Tx 2013), the crux of a qui tam complaint was
-
Fourth Circuit Defends its Narrow Interpretation Regarding Taxation of Costs for Making Copies
In our last blog, we discussed the recent Fourth Circuit case Country Vintner v. Gallo, No. 12-2074 (4th Cir. 2013). In this case, the Fourth Circuit followed the Third Circuit’s reasoning in Race Car Tires Am. Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3rd Cir. 2012) to disallow
-
Photostat This! Is “Making Copies” an Archaic Term for Electronic Discovery?
Electronic discovery is changing the entire landscape of how evidence is collected, organized, culled and searched in twenty-first century civil litigation. When cutting-edge eDiscovery software moves forward this fast, sometimes technology leaves our legislative statutes in the dust. A example of this may be the federal taxation-of-costs statute found in
-
Search Term Disputes: Valid Arguments or a Simple Lack of Cooperation?
Many times, search term disagreements can be resolved through cooperative efforts. Indeed, the “meet and confer” requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates parties to make a good faith effort to resolve such disputes without litigation. In the March 14, 2013 order in the case Robert Bosch LLC
-
District Court Orders Specific Default Protocol for ESI Production
In the absence of concrete rules, or when parties seem to be unable to reach a compromise on electronic discovery, courts may outline specific orders to address all eDiscovery concerns. This was the case in the April 3, 2013 Order Regarding Electronically Stored Information in W Holding Company, Inc. v.
-
Electronic Discovery Update: Costs Awarded in “Sledgehammer” Case
Anyone who follows eDiscovery case law is sure to remember the 2012 court order in Taylor v. Mitre Corp., No. 1:11-cv-1247, (E.D.Va.). In the case, the plaintiff brought an employment discrimination claim against his former employer. After filing a claim, he took a sledgehammer to his work laptop. Although he
-
Will Email Threads Uncover Fraud in an $18 Billion International Case?
As email threads are now critical evidence in most civil litigation, it should be no surprise that email might be the key to determining whether massive fraud is at play in a very interesting case out of the Southern District of New York. Chevron Corp. v. Steven Donzinger, et al.,
-
District Court Chastises Defendant for Lack of eDiscovery Knowledge
Many lawyers now have a good understanding of electronic discovery law and technological advances, and the updated ABA model rules require this understanding to fulfill the ethical requirement of competence. For attorneys who lack this knowledge or who attempt to claim ignorance to evade discovery obligations should take note: courts
-
Mandatory v. Permissive Adverse Inference Instructions for eDiscovery Spoliation
Adverse inference instructions are a common tool available to the court as sanctions for electronic data spoliation. However, there are two main types of adverse inference instructions: mandatory and permissive. What is the difference, and how do courts decide which instruction is appropriate? In our last blog, we discussed the case
-
Does the Duty to Preserve Include the Duty to Recover Electronic Data?
The case law is clear: once litigation is reasonably foreseeable, both parties in civil litigation have a duty to preserve electronic data that would be relevant to a claim or defense. If a party destroys evidence, even unintentionally, this could be construed as spoliation. The sanctions available after spoliation include