Category: eDiscovery

  • Fourth Circuit Defends its Narrow Interpretation Regarding Taxation of Costs for Making Copies

    15 May 2013

    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?

    13 May 2013

    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?

    10 May 2013

    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

    29 Apr 2013

    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

    26 Apr 2013

    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?

    24 Apr 2013

    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

    22 Apr 2013

    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

    19 Apr 2013

    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

  • Clawbacks: A Weapon Against Defense Undue Burden Argument?

    15 Apr 2013

    A common excuse for defendants responding to plaintiff electronic discovery requests is that it is unduly burdensome to have to review massive amounts of documents for privilege.  Many defendants will claim that having to review the documents to remove or redact privileged electronic data is just too expensive. While these

  • Default Judgment Entered Against Defendant in 10th Circuit Discovery Abuse Case

    12 Apr 2013

    In Klein-Becker USA, LLC v. Englert, No. 12-4076, (10th Cir. 2013), plaintiff brought an action against an individual defendant who fraudulently acquired the plaintiff’s product and was selling it online. The defendant resisted plaintiff discovery requests from the start.  Early in the case, in ruling on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, the magistrate judge