Defendant’s “Self-Collection” Efforts Insufficient After Court Found Defendant’s Counsel Failed to Supervise or Advise Defendant’s ESI Search
In EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. M1 5100 CORP., d/b/a JUMBO SUPERMARKET, INC., Civil No. 19-cv-81320-DIMITROULEAS/MATTHEWMAN, before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Privilege Log, Better Discovery Responses, and Fees (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed its Complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) of 1967, as amended, 29
Defendant Ordered To Produce Earlier-In-Time Emails That Were Part Of Most-Inclusive Email Threads Defendant Previously Produced
In IN RE ACTOS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master File No. 1:13-cv-09244 (RA) (SDA) (S.D. N.Y., March, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion that sought to compel Defendant to “(1) produce all nonprivileged, responsive earlier-in-time emails that are part of the most-inclusive email threads [Defendant] already has produced or will
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Spoliation Granted After Court Found Defendants’ Failure to Preserve Relevant Electronically Stored Information
In CONSTANCE COLLINS, ET AL. v. TRI-STATE ZOOLOGICAL PARK OF MARYLAND, INC., ET AL., Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-01225-PX (D. Md. Nov. 19, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged that Defendants maintained a public nuisance through the neglect and continued mistreatment of animals
Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Granted Under Federal Rules 37(e) and Rule 37(c)(1) – Part II
Part I addressed the Court’s ruling in FAST v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, No. CV-20-01448-PHX-DGC (D. Arizona Fed. 2022), under Rule 37(e) regarding the duty to preserve. Part II below addresses the Court’s ruling regarding Rule 37(c) and the failure to produce. Defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) for Plaintiff’s failure
Court Grants, Among Others, Plaintiff’s Motion for Unredacted Versions of Documents Already Protected by a HIPAA Qualified Protective Order as well as Documents Showing Computer Queries Used by Defendants
In McCRIMMON and DETTMANN v. CENTURION OF FLORIDA, No. 3:20-cv-36-BJD-LLL (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2022) before the Court were several issues including discovery disputes regarding search terms, unredacted versions of documents covered by HIPAA, and computer queries conducted by Defendants. Plaintiffs, co-administrators of decedent’s estate, proceeded on an amended complaint
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
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.
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
Good Cause Existed To Require Defendants To Search for Relevant Documents Outside Its ESI System Of Record
In Wiggins v. Bank of Am., N.A., Civil Action 2:19-cv-3223 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2020), the parties disputed, among others, the sufficiency of Defendants’ production from its Documentum ESI repository. The case arose from Plaintiff’s challenges to Defendants’ policy of assessing overdraft fees on its customers. As part of discovery,
Medical Record Metadata Ordered To Be Produced In Light Of Different And Conflicting Versions of Plaintiff’s Medical Records
In Miller v. Sauberman, Index No. 805270/16 (N.Y. Dec. 6, 2018), a New York Supreme Court Justice denied Defendant’s motion for a protective order and granted Plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel the production of metadata related to Plaintiff’s medical records, despite Defendant’s estimated cost of $250,000 to produce such records. In