-
Second Circuit Takes Two Steps Back to Enforce Duty to Preserve Evidence
The standardization of eDiscovery protocols and better computer forensics is giving a boost in modern litigation to plaintiffs seeking to uncover the truth. Electronic data is difficult to hide or destroy, as it almost always leaves trace artifacts and trails. This was evident in the Zubulake series of cases where
-
Making Copies: What eDiscovery Services are Taxable Costs?
Is eDiscovery preservation, collecting, culling, searching and production the same as “making copies?” The defendants thought so in Race Tires America, Inc. LLC v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. (Race Tires II), No. 11-2316, 2012 WL 887593 (3d Cir. Mar. 16, 2012). The defense had won the underlying case on a
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rewrites the Rules for Electronic Discovery
Electronic data discovery is constantly evolving in both the state and federal courts. Federal courts now have accumulated a large amount of eDiscovery case law (much of which is discussed in our blog). Many state court opinions turn to and cite federal jurisprudence and the amendments to the Federal Rules
-
The Scope of Social Media in Plaintiff ESI Production
Litigants and courts struggle to define the scope of electronic data discovery, as well as the logistics of how to physically produce the electronically stored information. The newest scope and logistical challenges for ESI now lies in social media content. In EEOC v. Simply Storage Management, LLC Case No. 1:09-cv-1223-WTL-DML
-
What Should Plaintiffs Do if They Receive Inadvertent Disclosure in ESI?
Our last blog discussed a state business litigation case out of North Carolina where the defendants accidentally sent over an ESI production rife with data protected by attorney-client privilege. The defendants acted recklessly in their ESI production and failed to take even minimal steps to guard against inadvertent disclosure; therefore,
-
Defendant’s “Document Dump” Leads to Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
Defendants often employ an old, tired tactic to overwhelm plaintiffs’ counsel in response to discovery requests: Bury them in paperwork! However, litigants may want to rethink this strategy, as the use of a “document dump” for electronically stored information (ESI) can lead to inadvertent disclosure of privileged information. In the
-
Avoiding the Crossfire: The Lessons of Zubulake V
“When communication between counsel and client breaks down, conversation becomes “just crossfire,” and there are usually casualties.” Zubulake V, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13574 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2004). Zubulake V picks up where the last order left off, being that the Court found the defendants had breached their duty to
-
Zubulake IV and Missing Tapes: Did the Defendants Purposely Destroy Evidence?
Our blog has been doing a series on the Zubulake orders, covering many plaintiff eDiscovery issues even before the 2006 amendments to federal civil procedure. Before the gender discrimination case was filed in federal court in February of 2002, Zubulake had filed an EEOC complaint in August 2001. Defendants asserted
-
Did the Zubulake III Back Up Email Tapes Contain Relevant Data? You Bet They Did!
Monday’s blog discussed the Zubulake I case, where Judge Shira Scheindlin looked at eDiscovery accessibility to categorize different types of electronic data before a cost shifting analysis. The more inaccessible the data is, the more likely that cost shifting is appropriate. She ordered the defendants to produce a small set
-
A Look Back on Zubulake I, the Original Plaintiff eDiscovery Case
Beginning in 2002, an equity trader named Laura Zubulake filed suit against her former employer, UBS Warburg, for gender discrimination, failure to promote and retaliation. The potential for a large judgment was great, as damages would include lost wages and Zubulake made over $650,000 annually. The key evidence in this