Category: eDiscovery Case Law

  • Defense Strikes Back to Plaintiff eDiscovery Allegations of Spoliation

    9 Jan 2013

    Our last blog listed the categories of electronic data discovery plaintiff alleges to be inadequate in the employment discrimination case Day v. LSI Corporation, 2012 WL 6674434 (Dec. 20, 2012 D. Ariz.).  The main spoliation allegations were that the defendant failed to issue a timely litigation hold, failed to produce

  • Plaintiff eDiscovery and Spoliation Questions in Employment Discrimination

    7 Jan 2013

    In Day v. LSI Corporation, 2012 WL 6674434 (Dec. 20, 2012 D. Ariz.), plaintiff filed an employment lawsuit against the defendant-employee. In October 2010, plaintiff was let go and he sent an informal, internal complaint alleging racial discrimination and a claim for stock options that were allegedly granted but revoked.

  • Does Reckless Disregard Rise to the Level of Bad Faith for Evidence Spoliation?

    4 Jan 2013

    Our blog this week is discussing the evidence spoliation case Bozic v. City of Washington, Pennsylvania (2012 WL 6050610)(W.D.Pa. Dec. 5, 2012). The City Solicitor of the defendant city re-recorded an audiotape of an important meeting with the plaintiff, which events ultimately led to the plaintiff’s termination as a city

  • Plaintiff eDiscovery Discussion of Defendant Evidence Spoliation Continues

    2 Jan 2013

    Our last blog laid out the specific facts and timeline of Bozic v. City of Washington, Pennsylvania (2012 WL 6050610)(W.D.Pa. Dec. 5, 2012). In this case, plaintiff alleged the city as defendant engaged in electronic discovery spoliation when the City Solicitor destroyed a tape recording of a meeting that was

  • When the Duty to Preserve Evidence Arise for Allegations of eDiscovery Spoliation?

    31 Dec 2012

    In Bozic v. City of Washington, Pennsylvania (2012 WL 6050610)(W.D.Pa. Dec. 5, 2012) the plaintiff was a female firefighter and the defendant was the employer-city. Plaintiff had previously filed an EEOC charge against the city, and she was later hired. A few months later, the defendant claimed the plaintiff was

  • Are Plaintiff Email Threads Protected by the Marital Communications Privilege?

    28 Dec 2012

    While our blog typically focuses on plaintiff eDiscovery in class action lawsuits and MDL, in some instances, criminal courts also address electronic discovery issues that overlap into the civil realm. This is the case in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case United States v. Hamilton, No, 11-4878 (Dec. 13,

  • Administrative Judge Limits Complainant/Plaintiff ESI Production in UTC Action

    26 Dec 2012

    As part of a patent complaint before U.S. International Trade Commission, entitled In the Matter of Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, Inv. NO. 337-TA-850 (Nov. 19, 2012), one issue was the scope of eDiscovery. This is an administrative proceeding and the parties are not bound by the federal rules of evidence.

  • Judge Scheindlin Discusses ESI Production at 2012 eDiscovery Institute

    19 Dec 2012

    U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin recently spoke at the 2012 Georgetown eDiscovery Institute, where the topic was “First Do No Harm: Preserving and Admitting Foreign ESI.”  Judge Scheindlin’s penning of five Zubulake electronic discovery opinions in one of the first major plaintiff eDiscovery cases in the country makes

  • Email Chains Burn BP in Massive Plaintiff Multidistrict Litigation

    17 Dec 2012

    Oil giant BP is facing a massive MDL lawsuit in the Lone Star state. Plaintiffs are 47,830 sick residents, plant contractors and workers from the Texas City, Texas area. A fire at the town’s BP oil refinery caused the company to release over 513,795 pounds of toxic chemicals into the

  • Court Rules Handing Over iPhone Outside Scope of eDiscovery Requests

    14 Dec 2012

    In AllianceBernstein L.P. v. Atha, (2012 NY Slip Op 07766)(Nov. 15, 2012), plaintiff was an investment firm alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of confidential information by the defendant, a former employee. As part of the suit, plaintiff secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing defendant from retaining or using