-
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
-
Motion to Compel Production of Text Messages Granted
In SAGE PRODUCTS v. CHEMRITE COPAC, INC., No. 19 CV 5308 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2021) pending before the Court was a motion by Defendant ChemRite Copac, Inc., to compel Plaintiff, Sage Products, LLC, to produce text messages. This was a breach-of-contract suit between Sage, a manufacturer and supplier of
-
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.
-
Evidence Of Defendants’ Intentional Destruction Of Encryption Keys Permitted To Be Presented To Jury
[kc_row use_container=”yes” force=”no” column_align=”middle” video_mute=”no” _id=”935427″][kc_column width=”12/12″ video_mute=”no” _id=”803459″][kc_column_text _id=”725881″] In DOUBLELINE CAPITAL v. ODEBRECHT FINANCE, No. 17-CV-4576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021), a securities fraud lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought sanctions against Defendants, specifically, a mandatory adverse inference instruction at trial, as remedy for Defendants’ intentional destruction of encryption keys needed to
-
Arbitrary Limits On The Number of Custodians And Use of ESI Costs In Different Case To Justify Burden And Splitting of Costs Rejected by Magistrate Judge
In COUNTESS CARY v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP, No. 19 C 3014 (N.D. Illinois February 22, 2021), before the Magistrate Judge was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s production of ESI, which presented multiple issues. With respect to the issue of the number of custodians, Defendant proposed an arbitrary
-
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Allegations of Spoliation Overruled
In KIEFFABER v. ETHICON, Civil Action No. 20-1177-KHV (D. Kansas March 25, 2021), Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiffs’ allegations of Defendants’ spoliation. Despite an admission by its corporate designee that Ethicon destroyed tens of thousands of relevant documents in violation of its own document
-
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
-
Confidentiality Designation Not Appropriate Merely Because A Document Maybe Harmful, Uncomfortable, Or Embarrassing
In IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Civil No. 19-2875 (D.N.J. 2021), the issue before the Court was whether a Confidentiality designation pursuant to a Discovery Confidentiality or Protective Order was appropriate. In this case regarding claims that the generic version of the drug Valsartan for high
-
Defendant’s Request For An Order Foregoing Plaintiffs’ Post TAR Review and Cost Shifting Denied by Magistrate Judge
In IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Civil No. 19-2875 (D.N.J. 2020) before the Court was Defendant Teva’s request for an Order to forego additional review of documents that based on its own unilaterally developed and administered TAR, were predicted to be non-responsive. Teva alternatively sought to
-
Use Of Broad Search Term Compelled In Light Of Relevance To The Lawsuit And Absence Of Suggestions By The Parties On How To Further Tailor The Term
In Masimo v. Sotera Wireless, Case No. 19cv1100 (S.D. California Nov.16, 2020), before the Court was the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute where Plaintiff sought to compel a production of emails from Defendant Sotera’s former CEO. The case arose from Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant infringed on nine