-
Court Orders Plaintiff to Produce Documents It Had Already Produced in Government Investigation
In Solyndra v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 12-cv-05272-SBA (EDL) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2014), Defendant served document requests on Plaintiff that sought emails and documents that Plaintiff had already produced in a series of government investigations. Plaintiff agreed to produce a subset of documents responsive to agreed-upon search
-
Piecemeal eDiscovery Production at Issue in Contentious Litigation
In Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman d/b/a Optimum Energy LLC, No. 10-CV-446S(2014 WL 6908867)(W.D.N.Y.), defendant Optimum filed a motion for miscellaneous discovery relief. Prior to the present Motion, the court had warned plaintiff Armstrong to not engage in a piecemeal discovery production. After the warning, Armstrong had produced nine separate
-
Agreement on Native Productions Notwithstanding Disputes Regarding Deduplication, Metadata and PDF Sub-Files
In Williams v. Convival Corp, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02019-APG-PAL (D.Nev. December 5, 2014), the parties disagreed on an appropriate ESI Protocol Order and sought the court’s guidance. Plaintiff wanted the protocol to begin with a guidelines section that i) encouraged reasonable eDiscovery with the goal of limiting cost, burden and time; ii) required
-
Plaintiff Not Obligated To Produce ESI Maintained By Plaintiff’s eDiscovery Vendor
In Ablan v. Bank of America, Case No. 11 C 4493 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 24, 2014), Defendant sought discovery from Plaintiff regarding documents and data that third-party Tax Strategies Group (TSG) had produced in a related settled state court litigation. Plaintiff stated that it had disposed of the discovery TSG produced in the state court action, and
-
Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Pre-Class Certification Discovery
In Peters v. Credit Protection Association LP, Case No. 2:13-cv-767 (S.D. Ohio November 26, 2014), a putative class action lawsuit alleging Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the FCC rules by making artificial voice and pre-taped calls, Plaintiff’s eDiscovery requests sought information regarding all debt collection calls made in Ohio
-
Court Rejects Defendant’s Attempt to Avoid Production Because of a Software Licensing Issue
In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 3:14-CV-16-PRL-CCS (E.D. Tenn. December 1, 2014), a railroad conductor alleged he suffered injury after trying to remove a fallen tree from a train track. Plaintiff’s eDiscovery requests requested that Defendant produce the video recording from a camera mounted on front of the train. Plaintiff alleged it needed
-
A Cautionary Tale: Attorney Fees Awarded After Plaintiff’s Failure to Timely Produce ESI
Under FRCP 37(a)(5)(A), if a motion to compel is granted—or if requested discovery is provided after a motion is filed—a court can require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion “to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney fees.” The Western District of Michigan recently considered this rule in Michigan Millers
-
Court Denies Defendant’s Burdensome Request to Conduct a 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding Plaintiff’s ESI Production
When is a noticed deposition unnecessarily burdensome? In Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Hunt, Civil Action No. 11-3684 (ES) (MAH) (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2014), Plaintiff produced electronic documents. Following the production, defense counsel interviewed Plaintiff’s IT employee regarding Plaintiff’s ESI practices. Nine months later, Defendant noticed a 30(b)(6) deposition to further inquire
-
Can Inadvertent Production of One Privileged Email Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege?
Under the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction, when does counsel’s inadvertent production of a privileged email constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege? An Iowa district judge recently considered that issue in Pick v. City of Remsen, No. C 13-4041-MWB (N.D.Iowa, September 15, 2014). In response to Plaintiff Pick’s requests for electronically stored
-
Defendants Must Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Cannot Do The Same
Plaintiff Finjan in the Northern District of California patent litigation case Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, Case No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF(2014 WL 5321095 (N.D.Cal.) recently won a contentious motion to compel regarding Defendant Blue Coat Systems’s refusal to produce emails from its archived database. Before the dispute arose, the parties had agreed to produce documents from a select number of custodians using